






.<i5\ia,..„,.,. 










U'.K\I^i]<. 



'mmm 













i LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. | 
c/mp. J^:r^^ / I 

Shelf .^^^ MoO i 



UIMSTED STATES OF AiVlERSCA. 




/ ../ 



Rcpiibllcaiiisin vs. Graiitism. 

TnE PRESIDENCY A TRUST; NOT A PLAYTHING AND PERQUISITE. 

Personal Government and Presidential Pretensions. 



REFORM AND PURITY IN GOVERNMENT. 



SPEECH 



HON. CHARLES SUMNER, 

OF MASSACHUSETTS, 



DELIVEKED 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 



MAI 31, 1812. r - -- 



" Socrntes. Thon whom do you eall the good 7 
Al(-ibiade>>. I mean by the good tliose who are able to rule in the eity. 
Socrates. Not. suroly, over horses? 
A/cibiadei. Cortiiinfy not. 
Socrfttes. But over men 'i 
Alcibiudei. Yes." 

[Plato, Dialogues. The First Alcibiades. 

"Among the foremost purposes ought to be the downfall of this odious, insulting, degrading, aide-do- 
campish, incapable dictatorship. At such a crisis is the country to be left at tho mercy of barrack councils 
and me^<-rac)in polific.5?" — Letter of Lord B.irhamto Heiiru Brougham. Aug., \iod. Brougham's Life and 
Times, Vol. iii, p. 44. 



WASHINGTON: 
F. & J. RlVdS & GEO. A. BA.ILEY, 
REPORTERS AND PRINrERS OP THE DEDATEi OF CONQRESS 

1872. 



Eg-] i^ 



'-J 



Republicanism vs. Grantism. 



The sundry civil appropriation bill coming up as 
unfinished business, Mr. Sumner moved to postpone 
indefinitely its consideration, and proceeded to re- 
view the report of the Committee on the Sale of 
Arms to French agents. 

Mr. SU-MNERthen said: 

Mr. President: I have no hesitation in 
declaring myself a member of the Repub- 
lican party and one of the straitest of the 
sect. I doubt if any Senator can point to 
earlier or more constant service in its behalf. 
I began at the beginning, and from that early 
day have never failed to sustain its candidates 
and to advance its principles. For these I 
have labored always by speech and vote, in 
the Senate and elsewhere, at first with few 
only, but at last as success began to dawn then 
with multitudes flocking forward. In this 
cause I never asked who were my associates 
or how many they would number. lu the 
consciousness of right 1 was willing to be 
alone. To such a party, with which so much 
of my life is intertwined, I have no common 
attachment. Not without regret can I see it 
suffer ; not without a pang can I see it changed 
from its original character, for such a change 
is death. Therefore do I ask, with no com- 
mon feeling, that the peril which menaces it 
may pass away. I stood by its cradle ; let me 
not follow its hearse. 

ORIGIN AND OBJECT OP THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 

Turning back to its birth, I recall a speech 
of ray own at a State convention in Massa- 
chusetts, as far back as September 7, 1854, 
where I vindicated its principles and announced 
its name in these words: "As Rf.pcbucaxs 
we go forth to encounter the Oligarchs of 
Slavery." The report records the applause 
with which this name was received by the 
excited multitude. Years of conflict ensued, 
in which the good cause constantly gained. 
At last, in the summer of 18(J0, Abraham 
Liucoln was nominated by this party as its 



candidate for the Presidency; and here par- 
don me if I refer again to myself. On my way 
home from the Senate I was detained in New 
York by the invitation of party friends to 
speak at the Cooper Institute on the issues of 
the pending election. The speech was made 
July 12, and, I believe, was the earliest of 
the campaign. As pui^lished at the time it 
was entitled "Origin, Necessity, and Perma- 
nence of the Republican Party," and to ex- 
hibit these was its precise object. Both the 
necessity and permanence of the party were 
asserted. A brief passage, which I take from 
the report in the New York Herald, will show 
the duty and destiny I ventured then to hold 
up. After dwelling on the evils of Slavery and 
the corruptions it had engendered, including 
the purchase of votes at the polls, I proceeded 
as follows : 

" Therefore justso long as the present false theories 
of Slavery prevail, whether concerning its character 
morally, economically, and socially, or concerning 
its prerogatives under the Constitution, just so loug 
as the Slave Oligarchy, which is the sleepless and 
unhesitating agent of Slavery in all its pretensions, 
continues to exist as a political power, the Repub- 
lican party must endure. 'Applause.] ItbaJ men con- 
spire for Slavery, good men must combine for Free- 
dom. ['Good, good 1'] Nor (-an the holy war be ended 
uolii the barbarism now dominant in the Republic 
is overthrown and the Pagan power is driven from 
our Jerusalem. [Applause.] And when the triumph 
is won, securing the immediate object of our organ- 
ization, the Republican party will not die. but puri- 
fied by its long contest with Slavery and filled with 
higher life, it will be lifted to yet other elforis with 
nobler aims for the good of man. [Applause, three 
cheers for Lincoln.]" 

Such, on the eve of the presidential election, 
was my description of the Republican party 
and my aspiration for its future. It was not 
to die, but purified by long contest with 
Slavery and filled with higher life, we were 
to behold it lifted to yet other efforts and 
nobler aims for the good of man. Here was 
nothing personal, nothing mean or petty. The 
Republican party was necessary and perma- 



nent, and always on an ascending plane. For 
Buch a party there was no deaih, but higher 
life and nobler aims; and this was the party 
to which 1 gave my vows. But alas! how 
changed. Once country was the object, and 
not a man ; once principle was inscribed on 
the victorious banners, and not a name only. 

REPUBLICAN PARTY SEIZED BY THE PRESIDENT. 

It is not difficult to indicate wben this disas- 
trous change, exaliing the will of one man 
above all else, became not merely manltest but 
painfully conspicuous. Already it had begun 
to show itself in personal pretensions, to which 
I shall refer soon, when suddenly aud without 
any warning through the public press or any 
expression from public opinion, the President 
elected by the Republican party precipitated 
upon the country an ill-considered and ill- 
omened scheme lor the annexion of a portion 
of the island of St. Domingo, in pursuance of 
a treaty negotiated by a person of iiis own 
household styling himself " Aid-de-Camp of 
the President of the United States." Had 
this effort, however injudicious in object, been 
confined to ordinary and constitutional pro- 
ceedings, with proper regard lor a coordinate 
branch of the Government, it would have soon 
dropped out ofsightand been remembered only 
as a blunder. But it was not so. Strangely 
and unaccountably, it was pressed for months 
by every means and appliance of power, 
whether at home or abroad, now reaching into 
the Senate Chamber, and now into the waters 
about the island. Reluctant Senators were 
subdued to its support, while, treading under 
foot the Constitution in one of its most dis 
tinctive republican principles, the President 
seized the war powers of the nation, instituted 
foreign intervention, and capped the climax 
of usurpaiion by menace of violence to the 
Black Republic of Hayti, where the colored 
race have commenced the experiment of self- 
government, thus adding manifest outrage of 
International Law to manifest outrage of the 
Constitution, while the long-suffering African 
was condemned to new indignity. All these 
things, so utterly indefensible and aggravating, 
and therefore to be promptly disowned, found 
defenders on this floor. The President, who 
was the original author of the wrongs, contin- 
ued to maintain them, and appealed to Repub- 
lican Senators for help, thus fulfilling the 
excentric stipulation with the Government of 
Baez, executed by his Aid de-Camp. 

At last a Republican Senator, who felt it his 
duty to exhibit these plain violations of the 
Constitution and of International Law, and 
then in obedience to the irresistible. prompt- 
ings of his nature, and in harmony with his 
whole life, pleaded for the equal rights of the 
Black Republic — who declared that he did this 
as a Republican, and to save the party from 
this wretched complicity — this Republican 



Senator, engaged in a patriotic service, and 
anxious to save the colored people from out- 
rage, was denounced on this floor as a traitor 
to the party, and this was done by a Senator 
speaking for the party, and known to be in 
intimate relations with the President guilty of 
these wrongs. Evidently the party was in 
process of change from that generous asso- 
ciation dedicated to Human Rights and to the 
guardianship of the African race. Too plainly 
it was becoming the instrument of one man 
and his personal will, no matter how much he 
set at defiance the Constiiuiion and Interna- 
tional Law, or how much he insulted the col- 
ored people. The President was to be main- 
tained at all hazards, notwithstanding his 
aberrations, and all who called them in ques- 
tion were to be struck down. 

In exhibititig this autocratic pretension, so 
revolutionary and unrepublican in character, 
I mean to be moderate in language and to keep 
within the strictest bounds. The facts are in- 
disputable, and nobody can deny the gross 
violation of lue Constitution and of Inter- 
national Law with insult to the Black Repub- 
lic — the whole case being more reprehensi- 
ble, as also plainly more unconstitutional and 
more illegal than anything alleged against 
Andrew Johnson on his impeachment. Be- 
lieve me, sir, I should gladly leave this matter 
to the judgment already recorded, if it were 
not put in issue again by the extraordinary 
efforts, radiating on every line of office, to 
press its author for a second term as Pres- 
ident; and since silence gives consent, all 
these efforts are his efforts. They become 
more noteworthy when it is considered that 
the name of the candidate thus pressed has 
become a sign of discord and not of concord, 
dividing instead of uniting the Republican 
party, so that these extraordinary efforts tend 
directly to the disruption of the parry, all of 
which he witnesses and again by his silence 
raiifies. "Let the party split," says the Pres- 
ident, "I will not renounce my chance of a 
second term." The extent «f this personal 
pressure and the subordination of the party to 
the will of an Individual compel us to consider 
his pretensions. These, too, are in issue. 

PRESIDENTIAL PRETENSIONS. 

" On what meat doth this our Caesar feed" 
that he should assume so much? No honor 
for victory in war can justify disobedience to 
the Constitution and to law; nor can it afford 
the least apology for any personal immunity, 
privilege, or license in the presidential office. 
A President must turn into a king before it 
can be said of him that he can do no wrong. 
He is responsible always. As President he 
is foremost servant of the law, bound to obey 
its slightest mandate. As the elect of the peo- 
ple he owes not only the example of williiig 
obedience, but also of fidelity and industry in 



the discharge of his conspicuous office with an 
absolute abnegation of all self seeking. Noth- 
ing for self but ail for country. And now, as 
we regard the career of this candidate, we 
find to our amazement how little it acc«fds 
with this simple requirement. Bring it to the 
touchstone and it fails. 

Not only are Constitution and law disre- 
garded, but the presidential office itself is 
treated as little more than a plaything and a 
perquisite — when not the former then the 
latter. Here the details are ample; showing 
how from the beginning this exalted trust has 
dropped to be a personal indulgence, where 
palace cars, fast horses, and sea-side loiterings 
figure more than duties ; how personal aims 
and objects have been more prominent than 
the public interests ; how the presidential 
office has been used to advance his own family 
on a scale of nepotism dwarfing everything 
of the kind in our history and hardly equaled 
in the corrupt Governments where this abuse 
has most prevailed; how in the same spirit 
office has been conferred upon those from whom 
he had received gifts or benefits, thus making 
the country repay his personal obligations ; how 
personal devotion to him.-elf rather than pub 
lie or party service has been made the stand- 
ard of favor; how the vast appointing power 
conferred by the Constitution for the general 
welfare has been employed at his wili to pro- 
mote his schemes, to reward his friends, to pun 
ish his opponents, and to advance his election 
to a second term; how all these assumptions 
have matured in a personal government, semi- 
military in character and breathing the mili- 
tary spirit, being a species of Casiarism or 
personalising abhorrent to republican institu- 
tions, w here subservience to the President is the 
supreme law ; how in maintaining this subserv- 
ience he has operated by a system of combin- 
ations, military, political, and even senatorial, 
having their orbits about him, so that, like the 
planet Saturn, he is surrounded by rings ; nor 
does the similitude end here, for his rings, 
like those of the planet, are held in position 
by satellites ; how this utterly unrepublican 
Caesarism has mastered the Republican party 
and dictated the presidential will, stalking 
into the Senate Chamber itself, while a vin- 
dictive spirit visits good Republicans who 
cannot submit ; how the President himself, 
unconscious thai a President has no right to 
quarrel wiih anybody, insists upon quarreling 
until he has become the great presidential 
quarreler, with more quarrels than all otiier 
Presidents together, ail begun and contin- 
ued by liimseif; how his personal followers 
back him in quarrels, insuk. those he insulis, 
and then, nut deparluig from his spirit, cry 
out with Shakspeare, " We will have rings 
and things and fine array;" and finally, how 
the chosen head of the Kepublic id knowu 



chiefly for presidential pretensions, utterly 
indefensible in character, derogatory to the 
country and of evil influence, making personal 
objects a primary pursuit, so that instead of 
a beneficent presence he is a bad example 
through whom Republican institutions suffer 
and the people learn to do wrong. 

Would thai these things could be forgotten, 
but since through officious friends the Pres- 
ident insists upon a second term they must 
be considered and publicly discussed. When 
understood nobody will vindicate them. It is 
easy to see that Caisarisra even in Europe is at 
a discount ; that " personal governmetii" has 
been beaten on that ancient field, and that 
"Caesar wiih a senate at his heels"' is not 
the fit model for our Republic. King George 
III of England, so peculiar for narrowness 
and obstinacy, had retainers in Pa'riiament 
who went under the name of " Ihe King's 
Friends." Nothing can be allowed here to 
justify the inquiry, " Have we a King George 
among us?" or that other question, "Have 
we a party in the Senate of ' the King's 
Friends?' " 

PERSONAL GOVERNMENT UNREPUBLICAN. 

Personal government is autocratic. It is 
the One Man Power elevated above all else, 
and is, therefore, in direct conflict with re- 
publican government, whose consummate form 
is tripartite. Executive, Legislative, and Judi- 
cial; each independent and coequal. From 
Mr. Madison, in the Federalist, we learn that 
the accumulation of these powers " in the same 
hands'" may justly be pronouncr-d " the very 
definition of tyranny." And so any attempt 
by either to exercise powers of another is a 
tyrannical invasion always reprehensible in 
proportion to its extent. John Adams tells 
us in most instructive words that " it is by 
balancing each of these powers against the 
other two that the eftbrts in human nature 
toward tyranny can alone be checked and 
resir-iined, and any degree of freedom pre- 
served in the Consiituiion." {John Adams^ s 
Works, Vol. IV, p. 186.) 

Then, again, the same authority says that 
the perfection of this great idea is " by giving 
each division a power to defend itself by a 
negative." (/iiti, page 2i)6 ) In other words, 
each is armed against invasion by the others. 
Accordingly, the constitution of Virginia, in 
177(3, conspicuous as an historical precedent, 
declared expressly : 

" The legislative, executive, and judiciary depart- 
ments shall bo .separate and disuiict. so lliat neilher 
exercise the powers properly belonsjing to the other ; 
nor shall auy persoa execute tiie powers of more 
than oue ot them at the same time." 

The constitution of Massachusetts, dating 
from 178l>, einboJiei the same pri:iciple iu 
meinoraule words : 

" The legislative ilepartment .■'hall never exeroi.^a 
the executive uu4 judiqial powers, or eiiuec of 



6 



them; the executive shall never exercise the legis- 
lative and judicial powers, or either of them; the 
judicial shall never exercise the lc?isiative and 
executive powers, or either of them, to the end that 
it may be a government of laws and not of men." 

A government of laws and not of men is the 
object of republican government; nay more, 
it is the distinctive essence without which ii 
becomes a tyranny. Therefore, personal gov- 
ernment in all its forms, and especially when 
it seeks to sway the action of any oilier branch 
or overturn its constitutional negative, is hos- 
tile to the first principles of republican insti- 
tutions, and an unquestionable outrage. That 
our President has offended in this way is 
unhappily too apparent. 

THE PRESIDENT AS A CIVILIAK. 

To comprehend ihe personal government 
that has been installed over us we must iinow 
its author. His picture is the necessary 
frontispiece ; not as soldier, let it be borne in 
mind, but as civilian. The President is titular 
head of the Army and Navy of the United 
States; but his ofitice is not military or naval. 
As if to exclude all question, he is classed by 
the Constitution among "civil officers." 
Therefore as civilian is he to be seen. Then, 
perhaps, may we learn the secret of the policy 
so adverse to republicanism in which he 
perseveres. 

To appreciate bis peculiar character as a 
civilian it is important to know his triumphs 
as a soldier, for the one is the natural com- 
plement of the other. The successful soldier 
is rarely changed to the successful civilian. 
There seems an incompatibility between the 
two, modified by the extent to which one has 
been allowed to exclude the other. One 
always a soldier cannot late in life become a 
statesman; one always a civilian cannot late 
in life become a soldier. Education and expe- 
rience are needed for each. Washington and 
Jackson were civilians as well as soldiers. 

In the large training and experience of 
antiquity ihe soldier and civilian were often 
united ; but in modern times this has been 
seldom. The camp is peculiar in the influence 
it exerci'^es; it is in itself an education; but it 
is not the education of the statesman. To 
suppose that we can change wiihout prepara- 
tion from the soldier to tne statesman is to 
assume that training and experience are of 
less consequence for the one than the other — 
that a man may be born a statesman but can 
fit himself as a soldier only by four years at 
West Point, careful scientific study, the com- 
mand of troops, and experience in the tented 
field. And is nothing required for the states- 
man? is his duty so slight? His study is the 
nation and its welfare, turning always to his- 
tory for example, to law for authority, and to 
the lofiitsl truth for rules of conduct. No 
knowledge, care, or virtue, discifilined by 
habit, can be too great. The pilot is not 



accepted in his trust until he knows the signs 
of the storm, the secrets of navigation, the 
rooks of the coast, all of which are learned 
only by careful study with charts and sound- 
ings, by coasting the land and watching the 
crested wave. But can less be expected of 
that other pilot who is to steer the ship which 
contains us all? 

The failure of the modern soldier as states- 
man is exhibited by Mr. Buckle in his remark- 
able work on the "History of Civilization." 
Writing as a philosopher devoted to liberal 
ideas, he does not disguise that in antiquity 
'• the most eminent soldiers were likewise the 
most eminent politicians]" but he plainly 
shows the reason when he adds that "in the 
midst of the hurry and turmoil of camps these 
eminent men cultivated their minds to the 
highest point that the knowledge of that age 
would allow." (Vol. I, chap. 4.) The secret 
was culture not confined to war. In modern 
Europe few soldiers have been more con- 
spicuous than Gustavus Adolphus and Fred- 
erick sometimes called the Great: but we 
learn from our author that both " failed igno- 
miniously in their domestic policy and showed 
themselves as short-sighted in the arts of 
peace as they were sagacious in the arts of 
war." {Ibid.) The jndgmentof Marlborough 
is more pointed. While portraying him as 
"the greatest conqueror of the age, the hero 
of a hundred fights, the victor of Blenheim 
and Hamillies," the same philosophical writer 
describes him as " a man not only of the most 
idle and frivolous pursuits, but so miserably 
ignorant that his deficiencies made him the 
ridicule of his contemporaries," while his 
politics were compounded of selfishness and 
treachery. Nor was Wellington an exception. 
Though shining in the field without a rival, 
and remarkable for integrity of purpose, an 
unflinching honesty and high moral feeling, the 
conqueror of VVaterloo is describedas " never- 
theless utterly unequal to the complicated 
exigencies of political life." {Ibid.) Such 
are the examples of history, each with its 
warning. 

It would be hard to find anything in the 
native endowments or in the training of our 
chieftain to make him an illustrious exception ; 
at least nothing of this kind is recorded. W.-is 
nature more generous with hiai than with 
Marlborough or Wellington, Gustavus Adol- 
phus or Frederick called the Great? Or was 
his experience of life a better preparation than 
theirs ? And yet they failed except in war. It 
is not known that our chieftain had any expe-, 
rience as a civilian until he became President, 
nor does any partisan attribute to him that 
double culture which in antiquity made the 
same man soldier and statesman. It has been 
often said that he took no note of public affairs 
never voting but once in his life, and then for 



James Buchanan. After leaving West Point he 
became a captain in the Army, but soon aban- 
doned the service to reappear at a laterday asn 
successful general. There is no reason to believe 
that he employed this intermediate period in any 
way calculated to improve him as a statesman. 
One of his unhesitating supporters, my col- 
league, [Mr. Wii.sox,] in a speech intended 
to commend him for reelection says: 

" Before the war we knew nothing of Griint. lie 
was earuiuK a few hundred dollars ayear in tanning 
hides in Giileniu" 

By the war he passed to be President; and 
such was his preparation to govern the great 
Republic, making it an example to mankind. 
Thus he learned to deal with all questions 
domestic and foreign, whether of peace or war, 
to declare constitutional law and international 
law and to administer the vast aiipointiug 
power, creating Cabinet ofiBcers, judges, for- 
eign ministers, and au uncounted army of 
officeholders. 

To these things must be added that when 
this soldier first began as civilian he was 
already forty six years old. At this mature 
age, close upon half a century, when habits 
are irrevocably fixed, whea the mind has hard- 
ened against what is new, when the character 
has taken its permanent form, and the whole 
man is rooted in his own unchangeable indi- 
viduality, our soldier entered abruptly upon the 
untried life of a civilian in its most exalted 
sphere. Do not be surprised, that, like other 
soldiers, he failed ; the wonder would be had 
he succeeded. Harvey was accustomed to say 
that nobody over forty ever accepted his dis- 
covery of ttrf circulation of the blood ; but he 
is not the only person who has recognized this 
period of life as the dividing point after which 
it is difficult to learn new things. Something 
like this is embodied in the French saying, 
that at forty a man has given his measure. At 
least his vocation is settled — how completely 
is seen if we suppose the statesman after trav- 
ersing the dividing point abruptly changed to 
the soldier. And j'et at an age nearly seven 
years later our soldier precij)ilately changed 
to the statesman. 

This sudden metamorphosis cannot be forgot- 
ten when we seek to comprehend the strange 
pretensions which ensued. It is eavsy to see 
how some very moderate experience in civil 
life, involviii'^ of course the lesson of subor- 
dination to republican principles, would have 
prevented indelensible acts. 

TESTIMONY OF TUE LATE EDWIN M. STANTON. 

Something also must be attributed to indi- 
vidual character; and here 1 express no opin- 
ion of my own : 1 shall allow another to speak 
in solemn words echoed from the tomb. 

On reaching Wasliingtoii at the opening of , 
Congress in December, IHGO, I was pained to 
hear that Mr. Slauion, lately SecreUry of . 



War, was in failing health. Full of gratitude 
for his unsurpassed services, and with a senti- 
ment of friendship quickened by common 
political .sympathies, I lost no time in seeing 
him, and repeated my visits until his death, 
toward the close of the same month. My last 
visit was marked by a communication never 
to be forgotten. As I entered his bedroom, 
where I found him reclining on a sofa, propped 
by pillows, he reached out his hand, already 
clammy cold, and in reply to my inquiry, 
" Uow are you?" answered, " Waiting for 
my furlough." Then at once with singular 
solemnity he said, "I havesomelhing to say 
to you." When I was seated he proceeded 
without one word of introduction : "'1 know 
General Grant better than any other person 
in the country can know him. It was my duly 
to study him, and I did so night and day, when 
I saw him and when I did not see him, and 
now I tell you what I know, he cannot govern 
this country.'^ Ihe intensity of his manner and 
the positiveness of his judgment surprised me, 
for though I was aware that the late Secretary 
of War did not place the President very high 
in general capacity, I was not prepared for 
a judfjment so strongly couched. At last, 
after some delay, occupied in meditating his 
remarkable words, I observed, " What you 
say is very broad." "It is as true as it is 
broad," he replied promptly. I added, "You 
are tardy ; you tell this late ; why did you not 
say it before his nomination?" He answered 
that he was notconsulted about the nomination, 
and had no opportunity of expressing his 
opinion upon it, besides being much occupied 
at the time by his duties as Secretary of War 
and his contest with the President. 1 followed 
by saying, "But you took part in the pres- 
idential election, and made a succession of 
speeches for him in Ohio and Pennsylvania." 
"Ispoke," said he, " but I never introduced 
the name of General Grant. I spoke for the 
Republican party and the Republican cause." 
This was the last lime I saw Mr. Stanton. A 
few days later I followed him to the grave 
where he now rests. As the vagaries of the 
President became more manifest and the pres- 
idential office seemed more and more a play- 
thing and perquisite, this dying judgment of 
the great citizen who know him so well 
haunted me constantly day and nighl, and I 
now communicate it to my country, feeling 
that it is a legacy which 1 have no right to 
withhold. Beyond the intrinsic interest from 
its author, it is not without value as tes- 
timony in considering how the President could 
have been led into that Quixotism ot personal 
pretension which it is my duty to expose. 

DUTY TO MAKE KIP03DRK. 

Parion me if I repeat that it is my duty to 
make this exposure, spreading betl/re you the 



8 



proofs of that personal government, which will 
only pass without censure when it passes with- 
out observation. Insisting upon reelection, 
the President challenges inquiry and puts him- 
self upon the country. But even if his press- 
ure for reelection did not menace the tran- 
quillity of the country, it is important that the 
personal pretensions he has set up should be 
exposed, that no President hereafter may ven- 
ture upon such ways and no Senator presume 
to defend them. The case is clear as noon. 

TWO TYPICAL INSTANCES. 

In opening this catalogue I select two 
typical instances, Nepotism and Gift-taking 
otficially compensated, each absolutely inde- 
fensible in the head of a Republic, most per- 
nicious in example, and showing beyond 
question ihat surpassing egotism of pretension 
which changed thu presidential office into a 
personal inslrumeiitality, not. unlike the trunk 
of an elephant, apt for all tilings, small as 
well as great, from provision for a relation to 
forcing a treaty on a reluctant Senate or 
forcing a reiilection on a reluctant people. 

NEPOTISM OF THE PRESIDENT. 

Between these two typical instances I hesi- 
tate which to place foremost, but since the 
nepotism of the I'resident is a ruling passion 
revealing the primary instincts of his nature ; 
since it is maintained by him in utter uncon- 
sciousness of its offensive character ; since 
instead of blushing for it as an unhappy mis- 
take he continues to uphold it; since it has 
been openly del'ended by Senators on this 
floor, and since no true patriot anxious for 
republican institutions can doubt that it ought 
to be driven with hissing and scorn from all 
possibility of repetition, 1 begin with this 
undoubted abuse. 

There has been no call of Congress for a 
return of the relations holding office, stipend 
or money-making opportunity under the Pres- 
ident. The country is left to the press for in- 
formation on this important subject. If there 
is any exaggeration the President is in fault, 
since knowing the discreditable allegations he 
has not hastened to furnish the precise facts, 
or at least his partisans have failed in not call- 
ing for the official information. In the mood 
which they have shown in this Chamber it is 
evident that any resolution calling for it moved 
by a Senator not known to be lor his reelec- 
tion would meet with opposition, and an effort 
to vindicate republican institutions would be 
denounced as an assault on the President. But 
the newspapers have placed enough beyond 
question for judgment on this extraordinary 
case, although thus far there has been no 
attempt to appreciate it, especially in the light 
of history. 

One list makes the number of beneficia- 
ries as many as forty-two — being probably 



every known person allied to the President by 
blood or marriage. Persons seeming to speak 
for the President, or at least alter careful in- 
quit ies, have denied the accuracy of this list, 
reducing it to thirteen. It will not be ques- 
tioned that there is at least a baker's dozen in 
this category — thirteen relations of the Presi- 
de'ni billeted on the country, not one of whom 
but for this relationship would have been 
brought forward, the whole constituting a case 
of nepotism not unworthy of those worst Gov- 
ernments where office is a family possession. 

Beyond the list of thirteen are other revela- 
tions, showing that this strange abuse did 
not stop with the President's relations, but 
that these obtained appointments for others ia 
their circle, so that every relation became a cen- 
ter of influence, while the presidential family 
extended indefinitely. 

Only one President has appointed relations, 
and that was John Adams; but he found pub- 
lic opinion, inspired by the example of 
Washington, so strong against it that afYer a 
slight experiment he replied to an applicant, 
" You know it is impossible for me to appoint 
my own relations to anythingwithout drawing 
forth a torrent of obloquy." (Letter to Ben- 
jamin Adams, April 2, 1799; John Adams's 
Works, vol. VIII, p. 634.) The judgment af 
the country found voice in Thomas Jefferson, 
who, in a letter written shortly after he became 
President, used these strong words: "Mr. 
Adams degraded himself infinitely by his con- 
duct on this subject." But John Adams, 
besides transferring his son, John Quincy 
Adams, from one diplomatic post xo another, 
appointed only two relations. Pray, sir, what 
words would Jefferson use if he were here to 
speak on the open and multifarious nepotism 
of our President? 

ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF NEPOTISM. 

The presidential pretension is so important 
in every aspect, and the character of repub- 
lican institutions is so absolutely compromised 
by its toleration, that it cannot be treated in 
any perfunctory way. It shall not be my fault 
if hereafter there is any doubt with regard 
to it. 

The word "nepotism" is of Italian origin. 
First appearing at Rome when the papal power 
was at its height, it served to designate the 
authority and influence exercised by the 
nephews, or more generally the family of a 
Pope. All the family of a Pope were nephews 
and the Pope was universal uncle. As far 
bacjt as 1667 this undoubted abuse occupied 
attention to sucli a degree that it became the 
subject of an able historical work in two vol- 
umes, entitled // Nipotismo di Roma, which 
is lull of instruction and warning even tor 
our Republic. From Italian the word passed 
into other European languages, but in the 
lapse of time or process of ualuralizalioa, it 



9 



has come to denote the misconduct of the 
appointing power. Addison, who visited 
Kome at the beginning ol' llie last centuiy, 
described it as "undue patronage bestowed 
by the I'opes upon the members of their fam- 
ily." But the word has amplitied since, so as 
to embrace others besides I'opes who appoint 
relations to office. Johnson in his Dictionary 
defined it simply as "fondness for nephews ;"' 
but our latest, and best lexicographer, Wor- 
cester, supplies a definition more complete 
and satisfactory: " Favoritism shown to rela- 
tions ; patronage bestowed in consideration 
of family relationship and not of merit.'" 
Such untioubtedly is the meaning of the word 
as now received and employed. 

The character of this pretension appears in 
its origin and history. In the early days of 
the Church, Popes are described as discarding 
ail relationship, whether of blood or alliance, 
in their appointments, and inclining to merit 
alone, although there were some wi;h so large 
anumber of nephews, grand- nephews, brothers- 
in-law, and relations as to baffl'^ belief, and yet it 
is recorded that no sooner did the good Pope 
enter the Vaiican, which is the Executive Man- 
sion of Piome, than relations fled, brothers-in- 
law hid themselves, grand nephews removed 
away, and nephews got at a long distance. 
Such was the early virtue. Nepotism did not 
exist, and the woid itself was unknown. 

At last, in 1471, twenty-one years before 
the discovery of America by Christopher 
Columbus, Sixtus IV became Pope, and with 
him began that nepotism which soon became 
famous as aKoinan institution. Born in 1411, 
the son of a hsherman, the eminent founder was 
already titty-tseven years old, and lie reigned 
thirteen years, bringing to his functions large 
experience as a successful preacher and as 
general of the Franciscan friars. Though 
cradled in poverty, and by the vows of his order 
bound to mendicancy, he began at once to heap 
office and riches upon the various members of 
his family, so that his conduct, from its bare- 
faced inconsistency with the obligation of his 
lile, excited, according to the historian, " the 
amazement and wonder of all." The useful 
reforms he attempted are forgotten, and this 
remarliable poniiti'is chiefly remembered now 
as the earliest nepotist. Difl'erent degrees of 
severity are employed by different authors in 
characterizing this unhappy fame. Bouillet, 
in his Dictionary of History, having Catholic 
approbation, describes him sl* " feeble toward 
his nephews," and our own Cyclopaedia, in a 
brief exposition of his character, says " he 
made himself odious by excessive nepotism." 
But in all varieties of expression the offense 
stands out for judgment. 

The immediate successor of Sixtus was 
Innocent Vill, wliom the historian describes 
as "very cold to his relations," since two 



only obtained preferment at his hands. But 
the example of the founder so far prevailed 
that for a century nepotism, as was said, 
" lorded it in Rome," except in a few instances 
worthy of commemoration and examjile. 

Of these exceptions, the first in time was 
Julius II, founder of St. Peter's at Rome, 
wliose remarkable countenance is so beau- 
tifully preserved by Raffaelle. 'I'hmigh the 
nephew of the nepotist, and not declining to 
appoint all relations, he did it with such mod- 
eration that nepotism was said to be dying 
out. Adrian VJ, early teacher of Charles V, 
and successor of Leo X, seta better example 
by refusing absolutely. But so accustomed 
had Rome become to this abuse, that not 
only by the embassadors but by the peojile 
was he condemned as "too severe wiih his 
relations." A son of his cousin, studying 
in Siena, started for Rome, trusting to obtaru 
important recognition. But the Pope, with- 
out seeing him, sent him back on a hired hor.se. 
Relations thronged from other places and even 
from across the Alps, longing for that great- 
ness w'hich other Popes had lavished on family ; 
but Adrian dismissed ihem with a slight change 
of clothing and an allowance of money for 
the journey. Une who from poverty came on 
foot was permitted to return on foot. This 
Pope carried abnegation of his family so far 
as to make relationship an excuse for not re- 
warding one who had served the Cliurch well. 

Similar in character was Marcellus II, who 
became Pope in 15-5o. He was unwilling 
that any of iiis family should come to Rome; 
even his brother was forbidden; but this good 
example was closed by death after a reign of 
twenty days only. And yet this brief period 
of exemplary virtue has made this pontiff 
famous. Kindred in spirit was Urban Vll, 
who reigned thirteen days only in 1590, but 
long enough to repel his relations, and also 
Leo Xl, who reigned twenty-five days in 1605. 
To this list may be added Innocent IX, who 
died after two months of service. It is related 
that his death displeased his relations much, 
and dissolved the air-castles they had built. 
They had hurried from Boiogna, but except a 
grand nephew, all were obliged to return poor 
as they came. In this list I must not forget 
Pius V, ^ho reigned from 15(35 to 1572. He 
set himself so completely against aegrandizing 
his own family, thai he was with difiiculty per- 
suaded to make a sister's son cardinal, and 
would not have done it hud not all the car- 
dinals united on grounds of conscience against 
ihe denial of this dignity to one most worthy 
of it. Such virtue was [)art of that elevated 
character which caused his subsequent canoa- 
izalion. 

These good Popes were short-lived. The 
reigns of all except Pius counted by days 
only; but they opened happy glimpses of aa 



10 



administration where the powers of govern- 
ment were not treated as a personal per- 
quisite. The opposite list had the advantage 
of time. 

Conspicuous among nepotists was Alex- 
ander VI, whose family name of Borgia is 
damned to fame. With him nepotism as- 
sumed its most, brutal and barbarous develop- 
ment, reflecting the character of its pontifical 
author, who was without the smallest ray of 
good. Other Popes were less cruel and bloody, 
but not less determined in providing for their 
families. Paul 111, who was of the great 
house of Farnese, would have had the Estates 
of the Church a garden for the "lilies" which 
flourish on the escutcheon of his family. It 
is related that when Urban VIII, who was a 
Barberini, commenced his historic reign, all 
his relations at a distance flew to Rome like 
the "bees" on the fd,mily arms, to suck the 
honey of the Church, but not leaving behind 
the sting wiih which they pricked while they 
sucked. Whether lilies or bees it was the same. 
The latter pontiff gave to nepotism fullness 
of power when he resolved "to have no 
business with any one not dependent upon 
his house." In the same spirit he excused 
himself from making a man cardinal because 
he had been " the enemy of his nephews." 
Although nothing so positive is recorded of 
Paul V, who was a Borghese, his nepotism 
appears in the Roman saying, that while serv- 
ing the Church as a good shepherd he "gave 
too much wool to his relations." These 
instructive incidents, illustrating the pon- 
tifical pretension, reflect light on the history 
of palaces and galleries at Rome which are 
now admired by the visitor from distant lands. 
If not created, they were at least enlarged by 
nepotism. 

it does not always appear how many rela- 
tions a Pope endowed. Often it was all, as in 
the case of Gregory XIII, who, besides 
advancing a nephew actually at Rome, called 
thither all his nephews and grand-nephews, 
whether from brothers or sisters, and gave 
them offices, dignities, governments, lord- 
ships, and abbacies. Caesar Borgia and his 
sister Lucrezia were not the only rela- 
tions of Alexander VI. I do not find the 
number adopted by Sixtus, the founder of the 
system. Pius IV, who was of the grasping 
^ledicean family, favored ho less than twenty- 
five. Alexander VII, of the Chigi family, 
had about him five nephews and one brother, 
which a contemporary characterized as " ne- 
potism all complete." This pontiff" began his 
reign by forbidding his relations to appear at 
Rome, which redounded at once to his credit 
throughout the Christian world, while the 
astonisbed people discoursed of his holiness 
and the purity of his life, expecting even to 
Bee miracles. In making the change he 



yielded evidently to immoral pressure and 
the example of predecessors. 

The performances of papal nephews figure 
in history. Next after the Borgias, were the 
Caraffas, who obtained power through Paul 
IV, but at last becoming too insolent and 
rapacious, their uncle was compelled to strip 
them of their dignities and drive them from 
Rome. Sometimes nephews were employed 
chiefly in ministering to pontifical pleasures, 
as in the case of Julius III, who, according 
to the historian, "thought of nothing but ban- 
queting with that one and with this one, keep- 
ing his relations in Rome, rather to accom- 
pany him at banquets than to aid him in the 
government of 'the holy Church, of which he 
thought little." This occasion for relations 
does not exist at Rome now, as the pontiff leads 
a discreet life, always at home and never ban- 
quets abroad. 

These historic instances make us see nepo- 
tism in its original home. Would you know 
how it was regarded there? Sometimes it was 
called ahydra with many heads, sprouting anew 
at the election of a pontiff; then again it was 
called Ottoman rather than Christian in char- 
acter. The contemporary historian who has 
described it so minutely says that those who 
merely read of it without seeing it will find it 
difficult to believe or even imagine. The 
qualities of a Pope's relation were said to be 
" ignorance and cunning." It is easy to be- 
lieve that this prostitution of the head of the 
Church was one of the abuses which excited 
the cry for Reform, and awakened even in 
Rome the echoes of Martin Luther. A brave 
Swiss is recorded as declaring himself unwill- 
ing to be the subject of a pontiff who was 
himself the subject of his own relations. But 
even this pretension was not without open 
defenders, while the general effrontery with 
which it was maintained assumed that it was 
above question. If some gave with eyes closed, 
most gave with eyes open. It was said that 
Popes were not to neglect their own blood, 
that they should not show themselves worse 
than the beasts, not one of whom failed to 
caress his relations, and the case of bears and 
lions, the most ferocious of all, was cited as 
authority for this recognition of one's own 
blood. All this was soberly said, and it is 
doubtless true. Not even a Pope can justly 
neglect his own blood; but help and charity 
must be at his own expense and not at the 
expense of his country. In appointments to 
office merit and not blood is the only just 
recommendation. 

That nepotism has ceased to lord itself in 
Rome; that no pontiff billets his relations 
upon the Church; that the appointing power 
of the Pope is treated as a public trust and 
not as a personal perquisite — all this is tho 
present testimony with regard to that govern- 



11 



ment which knows from experience the bane- 
ful character of this abuse. 

ASrERICAN ADTH0RITIK3 ON NEPOTISM. 

The nepotism of Rome was little known in 
our country, and I do not doubt that Wash- 
ington, when declining to nnake the presiden- 
tial office a j)erHonal perquisite, was governed 
by that instinct of duty and patriotism which 
rendered him so preeminent. Throngli all the 
perils of a seven years' war, he had battled 
with that kingly rule which elevates a whole 
family without regard to merit, fastening all 
upon the nation, and he bad learned that this 
royal system could find no place in a republic. 
Therefore he rejected the claims of relations, 
and in nothing was his example more beauti- 
ful. His latest biographer, Washington Irving, 
records him as saying: 

" So far as I know in.v own mind, I would not be in 
the remotest dugroo influenced in malciog nomina- 
tions bv motives nrising iVom the ties of family or 
blood."— Z/i/e of Washington, Vol. V, p. 22. 

'J'hen again he declared his purpose, 

" To discharge the duties of office with that im- 
partiality and zeal for the public good which ought 
never to suffer connections of blood or friendship to 
mingle so as to iiave the least sway on decisions of 
a public nature." 

This excellent rule of conduct is illustrated 
by the advice to his successor with regard 
to the transfer of his son, John Quincy 
Adams. After giving it as his decided opin- 
ion that the latier was the most valuable char- 
acter we had abroad, and promising to be the 
able.-t of all our diplomatic corps, Washing- 
ton declares : 

"If he was now to be brought into that line, or 
into any other public walk, I could not, upon the 
principle which has regulated my own conduct, 
disapprove of the caution which is hinted at in the 
letter."— John Adams's Works, Vol. VIII, p. 530. 

Considering the importance of the rule it 
were better if it had prevailed over parental 
regard and the extraordinary merits of the 
son. 

In vindicating his conduct at a later day 
John Adams protested against what he called 
"the hypersuperlative virtue " of Washing- 
ton, and insisted: 

"A President ouebt not to appoint a man be- 
cause he is his relation ; nor ought ho to refuse or 
neglect to appoint him for that reason." 

With absolute certainty that the President 
is above all prejudice of family and sensitive 
to merit only, this rule is not unreasonable; 
but who can be trusted to apply it? 

Jefferson developed and explained the true 
principles in a manner worthy of republican 
institutions. In a letter to a relation immedi- 
ately after becoming President, he wrote: 

"The public will never be made to believe that 
an appointment of a relation i^j made on the ground 
of merit alone, uninfluenced by faiuily views, nor 
can thry rvcr kc wuh approbation njjicrs, the dinpoKnl 
of lehich (hfv intruttio their Prendents for public pur- 
potes, divided out us family property. Mr. Adams 



degraded hitn.^elf infinitely by his conduct on thia 
subject, as \V.i<hington had done himself the great- 
est honor. NVitn two such examples to i)r')Ceed by, 
I ."hould be douljly inexcusable to err." — Li-tte.r to 
Geortie .Jcff>'r«on, March 2T, 18U1 ; JefTerson's Works, 
Vol. iV, p. 38S. 

After his retirement from the Presidency, in 
a letter to a kinsiwan, he asserts the rule again : 

"Toward acquiring the confidence of the people, 
the very first measure is to satisfy them of his dis- 
interestedness, and that ho is directing their 
affiirs with a single eye to their good, and not to 
build up fortunes tor himself and family, and espe- 
cially that the officers appointed to transact their 
business, are appointed because they are the fittest 
men, not because they are his relations. So prone 
are they to suspicion, that where a President ap- 
points a relation of his own, however worthy, they 
will believe that f.ivor, and not merit, was the 
motive. I therefore laid it down as a law of con- 
duct for myself, never to give an appoin'mcnt to a 
relation." — Letter to J. Garland Jefferson, January 25, 
1810; Ibid., Vol. V, p. 493. 

That statement is unanswerable. The elect 
of the people must live so as best to maintain 
their interests and to elevate the national sen- 
timent. This can be only by an example of 
unsf'lfish devotion to the public weal which 
shall be above suspicion. A Pr8sid^^nt sus- 
pected of weakness for his relations is already 
shorn of strength. 

In saying that his predecessor "degraded 
himself infinitely by his conduct on this sub- 
ject," Jefferson shows the rigor of his require- 
ment. Besides the transfer of his son, John 
Quincy Adams, from one di((lomaiic mission 
to another, John Adams is respon8il)lu for the 
appointment of his son-inlaw, Colonel Smith, 
as surveyor of the port of New York, and liis 
wife's nephew, William Cranch, as i-liiefjustice 
of thecircuit courtot'ihe Distiictof Columbia — 
both persons of mfrit, and the former •' serving 
through the war with high applause of his supe- 
riors." The public senliment appears in the 
condemnation of these appointments. In re- 
fusing another of his relations, we have already 
seen that John Adams wrote: 

"You know it is impossible for mo to appoint my 
own relations to anything without drawing forth a 
torrent of obloquy." 

But this torrent was nothing but the judg- 
ment of the American people unwilling that 
republican institutions at that early day should 
sufier. 

Thus far John Adams stands alone. If any 
other President has made appointments from 
his own family, it has been on so petty a scale 
as not to be recognized in history. John 
Quincy Adams, when President, did not follow 
his father. An early letter to his mother fore- 
shadows a rule not unlike that of Jefferson: 

" I hope, my ever dear and honored mother, that 
you arc fully convinced tViun my letters, which you 
have betbre this received, th it upon the contingency 
of my father's being placed in the first magistracy, 
I shall never give him any trouble by solicitation 
for office of any kind. Your late letters have re- 
peated so many tiraps that I shall in that c ise have 
nothing to expect, that I am afraid yo;i hjve im- 
agined it possible that //atp/i^furmexpectaLiuaafroa 



12 



such an event. I had hoped that my mother knew 
me better; that she did me the justice to believe 
that I have not been so totally regardless or forget- 
ful of the principles which my education had in- 
stilled, nor so totally deitituteof a;je/-«oij.(/sense of 
delicacy as lobe susceptible of a wish tending in that 
direction." — /oAft Adams's Works, Vol. VIII xia 
529, 530, note. ' " 

To Jefferson's -sense of public duty Johti 
Quincy Adams added the sense of personal 
delicacy, both strong, against the appointment 
of relations. To the irresistible jad'^ment 
against this abuse, a recent moralist, of lofty 
nature, Theodore Parker, imparts new expres- 
sion when he says, "It is a dangerous and 
unjust practice." (Historic Americans, p. 211.) 
This is simple and moniiory. 

PRESIDENIIAL APOLOGIES FOR NEPOTISM. 

Without the avalanche of testimony against 
this presidential pretension, it is only necessary 
to glance at the defenses sometimes set up; 
for such is the insensibility bred by presidential 
example, that even this intolerable outrage 
is not without voices, speaking for the Presi- 
dent. Sometimes it is said that his salary 
being far from royal, the people will not scati 
closely an attempt to help relations, which, 
being interpreted, means that the President 
may supplement the pettiness of his salary by 
the appointing power. Let John Adams, who 
did not hesitate to bestow office upon a few 
relations of unquestioned merit, judge this 
pretension. I quote his words; 

" Every public mau should be honestly paid for 
his services. But he should be restrained from 
every perqiuske not known to the laws, and he 
should make no claims upon the gratitude of the 
public, nor ever confer au office witliia his patron- 
age upon a son, a brother, a friend, upon pretense 
that he is not paid for his services by tbe profits of 
his o&ce."— Letter to John Jebh, August 21, 1785 : 
Works, Vol. IX, p. 535. 

It is impossible to deny the soundness of 
this requirement and its completeness as an 
answer to one of the presidential apologies. 

Sometimes tbe defender is more audacious, 
insisting openly upon the presidential preroga- 
tive without question, until we seem to he.ir 
in aggravated form the obnoxious cry, "To 
the victor belong the spoils." I did not 
suppose that this old cry could be revived in 
any form ; but since it is heard again, I choose 
to expose it, and here I use the language of 
Madison, whose mild wisdom has illumined so 
much of constitutional duty. In his judgment 
the pretension was odious, "that offices and 
emoluments were the spoils of victory, the per- 
sonal property oi the successful candidate for 
the Presidency," and be adds in words not to 
be forgotten at this moment: 

"The principle if avowed without the practice, 
or practiced without the avowal, could not fail to 
degrade any Aduaiuistration— both together com- 
pletely so."— Letter to Edward Cole. August 29, 1834. 
Letters and Writings, Vol. IV, p. 353. 

These are strong words. The rule in its 

early form could not fail to degrade any j 



Administration. But now this degrading rule 
is extended, and we are told that to the 
President's family belong the spoils. 

Another ajjology, vouchsafed even on thia 
floor, is, that if tlie President cannot appoint 
his relations they alone of all citizens are 
excluded from office, which, it is said, should 
not be. But is it not for the public good that 
they should be excluded? Such was the wise 
judgmetit of Jefferson, and such is the testi- 
mony from another quarter. That eminent pre- 
late, Bishop Butler, who has given to English 
literature one of its most masterly productions, 
known as " Butler's Analogy," after his ele- 
vation to the see of Durham with its remark- 
able patronage, was so self denying with regard 
to his family that a nephew said to him, 
'* Methinks, my lord, it is a misfortune to be 
related to you." Golden words of honor for 
the English bishop ! But none such have been 
earned by the American President. 

Assuming that in case of positive merit desig- 
nating a citizen for a pariicular post the Presi- 
dent might appoint a relation, it would be only 
where ihetuerit was so shining that his absence 
would be noticed. At least it must be such 
as to make the citizen a candidate without 
regard to family. But no such merit \i attrib- 
uted to the beneficiaries of our President, some 
of whom have done little but bring scandal 
upon the public service. At least one is tainted 
with fraud, and another, with the commission 
of the Republic abroad, has been guilty of indis- 
cretions inconsistent with his trust. Appointed 
originally in open defiance of republican prin- 
ciples, they have been retained in office after 
their unfitness became painfully conspicuous. 
By the testimoti}^ before a congressional com- 
mittee, one of these, a brother-in-law, was im- 
plicated in bribery and corruption. It is said 
that at last, after considerable delay, the Presi- 
dent has consented to his removal. 

Here 1 leave for the present this enormous 
pretension of nepotism, waiting to hear if it 
can again fi nd an apologist. Is there a single 
Senator who will not dismiss it to judgment? 

GIPT-TAKINO OFFleiALLY COMPENSATED. 

From one typical abuse I pass to another. 
From a dropsical nepotism swollen to ele- 
phantiasis, which nobody can defend, I pass 
to gift-taking, which with our President has 
assumed an unprecedented form. Sometimes 
public mea even in our country have takea 
gifts, but it is not known that any President 
before has repaid the patron with office. For 
a public man to take gifts is reprehensible; 
for a President to select Cabinet councilors 
and other officers among those from whom he 
has taken gifts is an anoiaaly in republican 
annals. Observe, sir, that I speak of it gently, 
unwilling to exhibit the indignation which such 
a presidential preteusioa is calculated to 



13 



arouse. The country will judge it, and blot it 
out as an example. 

There have been throughout history corrupt 
characters in otlicial station, but, whether in 
ancient or nuidern times, the testimony is con- 
stant against the taking of gifts, and nowhere 
with more i'orce than in our Scriptures, where 
it is said, "Thou shalt not wrest judgment, 
thou shalt not respect persons, neilher take a 
gift; for a gift doth blind the eyes of tlie 
wise." (Deuteronomy, XVI, 19.) Hereisthe 
inhibition and also the reason, which slight 
observation shows to be true. Does not a gift 
blind the eyes of the wise? The influence of 
gifts is represented by Plutarch in the life of 
a Spartait king: 

" For ho thought those ways of intrapping men by 
gifts nml presents, which other kings use, dishonest 
and inarlilicial : and it seemed lo liiui to be the 
most nuble method and most suitable to a king to 
win the affections of those that came near him by 
personal iiitcroourse and agreeable conversation, 
since between a Iriend and a mercenary the only 
distinction is, that we gain the one by our char- 
acter and conversation and the other by our 
money." — Plutarch's Lives; Vlough's Edition ; Vol. 
IV, p. 479, 

What is done under the influence of gift is 
mercenary ; but whether from ruler to subject 
or from subject to ruler, the gift is equally per- 
nicious. An ancient patriot feared ''the Greeks 
bearing gifts," and these words have become 
a proverb, but there are Ureeks bearing gilts 
elsewhere than at i'roy. A public man can 
traffic with such only at his peril. At their 
appearance the prayer ."hould be said, "Lead 
us not into temptation." 

The best examples testify. Thus in the auto- 
biogra|)hy of Lord Brougham, posthumously 
published, it appears that at a great meeting 
in Glasgow £500 were subscribed as a gift 
to him tor his [lublic service, to be put in such 
form as he might think best. He hesitated. 
"It required," he records, "much considera- 
tion, as such gifts were liable to abuse." Not 
content with his own judgment, he assembled 
his friends to discuss it, " Lord Holland, 
Lord Erskine, llomilly and Baring," and he 
wrote Earl Grey, afterward Prime Minister, 
who replied : " Both (Jranville and I accepted 
a piece of plate from the Catholics in Glas- 
gow, of no great value indeed, after we were 
turned ovt. If you still feel scruples, I can 
only add that it is imfiossible to err on the 
Bide of delicacy with respect to matters of 
this nature." It ended in his accepting a 
Bmall gold inkstand. 

In our country Washington keeps his lofty 
heights, setting himself against gift-taking as 
against nepotism. In 1785, while in private 
life, two years after he ceased to be com- 
mander-in-chief of our armies and four years 
before he became President, he could not be 
induced to accept a certain amount of canal 



stock offered him by the Slate of Virginia, 
as appears in an official communication ; 

" It gives me great pic.-isurc to inform you thattho 
Assembly, without ;i dissent in? voice, eotnpliniented 
you with fifty sliiires in tho Poti'mac C'liunmv and 
one hunilred in the Jam<>s Kivcr Ci)mpaiiy." — Waih- 
iiif/ioii'n WritiiioH, Vol. IX, p. 83; Letter uf Benjamia 
Harrison. January tj, 1775. 

Fully to a[>preciate the reply of Washington 
it must be borne iu mind that, according to 
Washington Irving, his biographer, "'Some 
degree of economy was necessary, for his 
financial affairs had suffered during tho war, 
and tht! products of his esta:e had fallen off." 
But he was not tempted. Thus he wrote : 

" How would this matter be viewed by the eye of 
the world, and what would be its opinion when it 
comes to be related that George Washington accepted 
S20.0U0? Under whatever pretense, and however 
customarily these gills are made in other countries, 
if I accepted this should I not henceforward becon- 
sidered as a dependent? I nover for a moment 
entertained the idea of accepting it." — llild., p. 85. 
Lellvr lu Beiijaiulii Unrrinoii, Jantiuru 22, 178.5. 

How admirably he touches the point when 
he asks, "If I accepted this, should I not 
henceforward be considered as a dependent?" 
According to our Scripture the gift blinds the 
eyes; according to Washington it makes the 
receiver a dependent. lu harmonv with this 
sentiment was his subsequent refusal when 
President, as is recorded by an ingenious 
writer : 

"He was exceedingly careful about committing 
himself, would receioe no favitm of any kind, and 
scrupulously paid for everything. A large house 
was set apart forhim on Ninth street, on the grounds 
now covered by the Pennsylvania, University, %ohich 
he refuiied to accept," — Colonel Forneu'i Anecdotes. 

By such instances brought to light recently, 
and shining in contrast with our times, we learn 
to admire anew the virtue of Washington. 

It would he easy to show how in ail ages 
the refusal of gifts has been recognized as the 
sign of virtue, if not the requirement of duty. 
The story of St. Louis of France is beautiful 
and suggestive. Leaving on a crusade he 
charged the Queen Regent, who remained be- 
hind, " not to accept presents for herself or 
her children." Such was one of the injunc- 
tions by which this monarch, when far away 
on a pious expedition, impressed hiavself upon 
his country. 

My own strong convictions on this presiden- 
tial pretension were aroused in a conversation 
which it was my privilege to enjoy with .Joha 
Quincy Adams, as he sat in his sick-chamber 
at his son's house in Boston, a short time 
before he fell at his post of duty in the House 
of Representatives. In a voice trembling 
with age and with emotion, he saiil that no 
public man could take gifts without peril, and 
he confessed that his own judgment had been 
quickened by the example of Count Roman- 
zoff, the eminent chancellor of the Russian 
empire, who, after receiving costly gilts from 



14 



foreign sovereigns with whom he had nego- 
tiated treaties, felt, a difficulty of conscience 
in keeping them, and at last handed over their 
value to a hospital, as he related to Mr. Adams, 
then minister at St. Petersburg. The latter 
was impressed by this Russian example, and 
through his long career, as minister abroad. 
Secretary of Slate, President, and Representa- 
tive, always refused gifts, unless a book or 
some small article in its nature a token and 
not a reward or bribe. 

The Constitution testifies against the taking 
of gifts by officers of the United States, when 
it provides that no person holding any office 
of profit or trust under them shall, without 
the consent of the Congress, accept of any 
present or emolument, from any king, prince, 
or foreign State. The acceptance of a pres- 
ent or emolument from our own citizens was 
left without constitutional inhibition, to be 
constrained by the public 'Conscience and the 
just aversion to any semblance of bargain and 
sale or bribery in the public service. 

The case of our President is exceptional. 
Notoriously he has taken gifts while in the 
IDublic service, some at least after he had been 
elected President, until '' the Galena tanner 
of a few hundred dollars a year," to borrow 
the words of my colleague, [Mr. Wilson,] 
one of his supporters, is now rich in houses, 
lands, and stock, above his salary, being prob- 
ably the richest President since George Wash- 
ington. Notoriously he has appointed to his 
Cabinet several among these " Greeks bearing 
gifts," without seeming to see the indecorum, 
if not the indecency of the transaction. At 
least two if not three of these Greeks, hav- 
ing no known position in the Republican 
party or influence in the country, have been 
selected as his counselors in national affairs, 
and heads of great departments of Govern- 
ment. Again do I repeat the words of our 
Scriptures, "A gift doth blind the eyes of the 
•wise." Again, the words of Washington, "If 
I accepted this should I not henceforward be 
considered a dependent?" 

Nor does the case of the first Secretary of 
State differ in character from th§ other three. 
The President, feeling under personal obliga- 
tion 10 Mr. Washburae for important support, 
gave him a complimentary nomination, with 
the understanding that after confirmation he 
should forthwith resign. I cannot forget the 
indignant comment of the late Mr. Fesseiiden 
as we passed out of the Senate Chamber, im- 
mediately after the confirmation: "Who," 
said he, " ever heard before of a man nomin- 
ated Secretary of State merely as a compli- 
ment ?" But this is only another case of the 
public service subordinated to personal con- 
eiderations. 

Not only in the Cabinet but in other offices 
there is reason to believe that the President 



has been under the influence of patrons. 
Why was he so blind to Thomas Murphy? 
The custom- hotise of New York, with all its 
capacity as a political engine, was handed 
over to this agent, whose want of recognitioa 
in the Republican party was outbalanced by 
presidential favor, and whose gifts have be- 
come notorious. And when the demand for 
his removal was irresistible the President 
accepted his resignation with an effusion of 
sentiment natural toward a patron, but with- 
out justification in the character of the retiring 
officer. 

Shakspeare, who saw intuitively the springs 
of human conduct, touches more than once 
on the operation of the gift. "Plldo thee 
service for so good a gift," said Gloster to 
Warwick. Then, again, how truly spoke tha 
lord, who said of Timon, 



"no gift to him 



But breeds the giver a return exceeding 
All use of quittance ;" 

and such were the returns made by the Presi- 
dent. 

Thus much for gift-taking, reciprocated by 
office. The instance is original and without 
precedent in our history. 

THE PRESIDENOy A PERQUISITE. 

I have now completed the survey of the two 
typical instances — nepotism and gift-takingoffi- 
cially compensated — in which we are compelled 
to see the President. In these things he shows 
himself. Here is no portrait drawn by critic 
or enemy; it is the original who stands forth, 
saying, " Behold the generosity I practice to 
my relations at the expense of the public ser- 
vice, also the gifts I take, and then my way of 
rewarding the patrons always at the expense 
of the public service." In this open exhibi- 
tion we see how the Presidency, instead of a 
trust, has become a perquisite. Bad as are 
these two capital instances, and important as 
is their condemnation, so that they may not 
become a precedent, I dwell on them now as 
illustrating the Administration. A President 
that can do such things and not recognize at 
once the error he has committed, shows that 
supereminence of egotism under which Con- 
stitution, International Law, and municipal 
law, to say nothing of Republican Govern-i; 
ment in its primary principles, are all subor-* 
dinated to the presidential will, and this is 
personal government. Add an insensibility 
to the honest convictions of others, and you 
have a qharacteristic incident of this preten- 
sion. 

INSTANCES. 

Lawyers cite what are called "leading 
cases." A few of these show the presidential 
will in constant operation with little regard to 
precedent or reason, so as to be a caprice, if 
k were not a pretension. Imitating the Popes 



16 



in nepotism, the President has imitated them 
in osleiitatious assumption of infallibility. 

THE president's INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 

Other Presidents have entered upon their 
high office with a certain modesty and distrust. 
Washington in his Inaugural address declared 
his "anxieties," also his sense of "the mag- 
nitude and difficulty of the trust" — " awaken- 
ing a distrustful scrutiny into his qualihca- 
tions." Jefferson in his famous Inaugural, 
so replete with political wisdom, after declaring 
his "sincere consciousness that the task is 
above his talents," says: 

"I approach it with those anxious and awful pre- 
sertimeuts wbioU lliegieatiiess of iLecharguaud the 
weaknes:s of my powors so justly inspire," * 
♦ * "iiiid I humble myself betore the mag- 
nitude of the undertaking. " 

Uur soldier, absolutely untried in civil life, 
entirely a new man, entering upon the sub- 
limest duties, before which Washington and 
Jefferson had shrunk, said in his Inaugural: 
•'The responsibilities of the position 1 feel, 
but accept them tvitkout fear.^' Great prede- 
cessors, vviib ample preparation for the re- 
sponsibilities, had shrunk back with fear. He 
had none. Eitber he did not see the responsi- 
bilities, or the Cajsar began to stir in his 
bosom. In either case he was disqualified. 

SELECTION OF HIS CABINET. 

Next after the Inaugural address, his first 
official act was the selection of his Cabinet, and 
here the general disappointment was equaled 
by the general wonder. As the President 
was little known except from the victories 
•which had commended him, it was not then 
seen iiow completely characteristic was this 
initial act. Looking back upon it we recog- 
nize the pretension by which all tradition, 
usage, and propriety were discarded, by which 
the just expectaiions of the party that had 
elected him were set at naught, and the 
safeguards of constitutional government were 
subordinated to the personal pretensions of 
One Man. In this Cabinet were persons 
having small relations with the Republican 
party, and little position in the country, some 
absolutely without claims from public service, 
and Bome absolutely disqualified by the gifts 
they had made to the President. Such was 
the political phenomenon presented for the 
first time in American history, while reported 
sayings of the President showed the simpli- 
city with which he acted. To a committee 
he described his Cabinet as his "family" 
with which no stranger could be allowed to 
interfere, and to a member of Congress he 
announced that he selected his Cabinet "to 
please himself and noboily else" — being good 
rules unquestionably for the organiaation of 
a household and ihe choice of domestics, to 
which the Cabinet seem to have been likened. 
This personal goverumeut flowered in the 



Navy Department, where a gift-bearing Greek 
was suddenly changed to a Secretary. No less 
a personage than the grand old Admiral, the 
brave, yet modest Farragut, was reported as 
asking, on the 5th of March, the very day when 
the Cabinet was announced, in unaffected igno- 
rance, "Do you know anything of Borie?" 
And yet this unconspicuous citizen, bearer of 
gifts to the President, was constituted the 
naval superior of that historic character. If 
others were less obscure, the Cabinet asaunit 
was none the less notable as the creature of 
presidential will where chance vied with favor- 
itism as arbiter. 

All this is so strange when we consider the 
true idea of a Cabinet. Though not named in 
theConsiitution,yetby virtue ot unbroken usage 
among us, and in harmony with constitutional 
governments everywhere, the Cabinet has be- 
come a constitutional body, hardly less than if 
expressly established by the Constitulion^itself. 
Its members, besides being the heads of great 
Departments, are the counselors of the Presi- 
dent, with the duty to advise him of all matters 
within the sphere of his office, being nothing 
less than the great catalogue in the preamble 
of the Constitution, beginning with duty to the 
Union, and ending with the duty to secure the 
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our pos- 
terity. Besides undoubted fitness for these 
exalted responsibilities as head of a Depart- 
ment, and as counselor, a member should 
have such acknowledged position in the coun- 
try that his presence inspires conlidence and 
gives strength to the administration. How 
little these things were regarded by the Presi- 
dent need not be said. 

Unquestionably the President has a discre- 
tion in the appointment of his Cabinet, but il 
is a constitutional discretion, regulated by 
regard for the interests of thii country, and not 
by mere personal will ; by statesmanship and 
not by favoritism. A Cabinet is a national 
institution and not a presidential perquisite, 
unless our President is allowed to copy the 
example of imperial France. In all consti- 
tutional governments, the Cabinet is selected 
on public reasons, and with a single eye to 
the public service ; it is not in any respect the 
"family" of the sovereign, nor is it " to please 
himself and nobody else." English monarchs 
have often accepted statesmen personally dis- 
agreeable when they had become representa- 
tives of the prevailing party, as when George 
III, the most obstinate of rulers,' accepted Fox, 
and George IV, as prejudiced as his father 
was obstinate, accepted Canning, each bring- 
ing to the service commanding abilities. By 
such instances in a constitutional government 
is the Cabinet fixed as a constitutional and not 
a personal body. It is only by some extraor- 
dinary hallucination that the President of a 
iiepublic deJicaCed to constitutional liberty 



16 



can imagine himself invested with a transform- 
ing prerogative above that of any English sov- 
ereign, by which his counselors are changed 
from public officers to personal attendants, 
and a great co-wslitutional body, in which all 
citizens have a common interest, is made a 
perquisite of the President. 

APPROPRIATION OF THE OFFICES. 

Marked among the spectacles which fol- 
lowed, and kindred in character with the appro- 
priation of the Cabinet as individual property, 
was the appropriation of the offices of the 
country, to which 1 refer in this place even at 
the expense of repetition. Obscure and unde- 
serving relations, marriage connections, per- 
sonal retainers, Army associates, friends of 
unknown fame and notable only as personal 
friends or friends of his relations, evidently 
absorbed the presidential mind during those 
months of obdurate reticence when a generous 
people supposed the Cabinet to be the ail- 
absori)ing thought. Judging by the facts, it 
would seem as if the chief and most spontan- 
eotas thougiit was how to exploit the appoint- 
ing power to his own personal behoof. At this 
period the New York custom-house presented 
itself to the imagination, and a letter was writ- 
ten consigning a military dependent to the 
generosity of the collector. You know the 
rest. Dr. Johnson, acting as executor in sell- 
ing the distillery of Mr. Thrale, said, " We 
are not selling a parcel of tubs and vats ; we 
are selling the potentiality of growing rich 
beyond the dreams of avarice." If the Presi- 
dent did not use the sounding phrase of the 
great English moralist, it is evident that his 
military dependent felt in that letter all the 
'• potentiality" advertised in the earlier case, 
and he acted accordingly. 

Jt is not necessary to say that in these 
things there was departure from the require- 
ments of law, whether in the appointment of 
his Cabinet or of personal favorites, even in 
return for personal benefactions, although it 
was plainly unrepublican, otfensive, and inde- 
fensible ; but this same usurping spirit, born 
of an untutored egotism, brooking no restraint, 
showed itself in another class of transactions, 
to which I have already referred, where law 
and Constitution were little rega,rded. 

PRESIDENTIAL ASSAULT ON SAFEGUARD OP THE 
TREASURY. 

First in time and very indigenous in char- 
acter was the presidential attempt against one 
of the sacred safeguards of the Treasury, the 
original workmanship of Alexander Hamilton, 
being nothing less than the '' act to establish the 
Treasury Department." Here was an import- 
ant provision that no person appointed to any 
office instituted by the act "shall directly or 
indirectly be concerned or interested in car- 
rying oa the business of trade or commerce," 



and any person so offending was declared 
guilty of a high misdemeanor, and was to for- 
feit to the United States $3,000, with removal 
from office, and forever thereafter to be inca- 
pable of holding any office under the United 
States. [Statiiies-al-Large, Vol. I, p. 67, 
September 2, 1789.) From ihe beginning this 
statute had stood unquestioned, until it had 
acquired the character of fundamental law. 
And yet the President, by a special message 
dated March 6, 1869, being ihe second day of 
his first service as a civilian, asked Congress 
to set it aside so as to enable Mr. Stewart, of 
New York, already nominated and confirmed 
as Secretary of the Treasury, to enter upon 
the duties of this office. This gentleman was 
unquestionably the largest merchant who had 
trausaded business in our country, and his 
imports were of such magnitude as to clog 
the customhouse. If the statute was any- 
thing but one of those cob-webs which catch 
the weak but yield to the rich, this was the 
occasion for it, and the President should have 
yielded to no temptation against it. The inde- 
corum of his etfort stands out more painfully 
eminent when it is considered that the mer- 
chant for whom he wished to set aside a time- 
honored safeguard was one of those from whom 
he had received gifts. 

Such was the accommodating disposition of 
the Senate, that a bill exempting the presi- 
dential benefactor from the operation of the 
statute was promptly introduced, and even 
read twice, until, as it seemed about to pass, 
1 felt it my duty to object to its consideration, 
saying, according to the Globe, '"I think it 
ought to be most profoundly considered before 
it is acted on by the Senate." This objection 
caused its postponement. The country was 
startled. By telegraph the general anxiety 
was communicated to Washington. At the 
next meeting of the Senate, three days later, 
the President sent a message requesting per- 
mission to withdraw the former message. But 
he could not withdraw the impression produced 
by such open disregard of the law to pro- 
mote his personal desire. 

ILLEGAL MILITARY RING AT EXECUTIVE MANSION. 

The military spirit which tailed in the effort 
to set aside a fundamental law as if it were a 
transient order was more successful at the 
Executive Mansion, which at once assumed 
the character of military headquarters. I'o 
the dishonor of the civil service and in total dis- 
regard of precedent, the President surrounded 
himself wuh officers of the Army, and substi- 
tuted military forms Tor those of civil life, 
detailing for this service members of his late 
staff. The earliest public notice of this mili- 
tary occupation appeared in the Daily Morn- 
ing Chronicle of March 8, 18(J9, understood 
to be the official orgctn of the Administrauon : 

"President Urant was not at the White House 



17 



yesterday, but the follovfing members of his staff 
were occupying the Secretaries' rooms and acting as 
such : Generals Babcock, Porter, Badoau, and Dent." 

This is to be regarded not only in its strange 
blazonry of the presidential pretension, but 
also as the first apparition of that minor inili- 
tary ring in which the President has lived ever 
since. 

Thus installed, Army ofBcers became secre- 
taries of the President, delivering his messages 
to both Houses of Congress, and even authen- 
ticating presidential acts as if they were mili- 
tary orders. Ilere, for instance, is an official 
communication : 

Executive Mansion, March 15, 1869. 
To Robert Martin DouGi/As, esq. 

Sir: You are hereby appointed Assistant Private 
Secretary to the Prusidout, to date from March 15, 
1869. 
By order of the President. 

UORACE PORTER, 
Brevet Brigadier General, Secretary, 

Mark the words, "by order ot the Presi- 
dent," and then the signature, " Horace Porter, 
Brevet Brigadier General, Secretary." 

The presidential pretension which I exhibit 
on the simple facts, besides being of doubttul 
legality to say the least, was of evil example, 
demoralizing alike to the military and civil 
service, and an undoubted reproach to repub- 
lican institutions in that primary principle, 
announced by Jetferson in his first Inaugural 
Address, " the supremacy of the civil over the 
military authority." It seemed only to remain 
that the President should sign his messages 
'•Commander-in-Chief of the Army of the 
United States." Evidently a new order of 
things had arrived. 

Observe the mildness of my language when 
I call this presidential pretension of doubt- 
ful legality. The law shall speak for itself. 
Obviously it ifixa the same for our military 
President aa for his predecessors, and it was 
recent also : 

"The President is hereby authorized to appoint a 
private secretary at an annual salary of $3,500, an 
asswlant secretary at an annual salary of S2,500, 
a short-hand writer at an annual salary of S2,500, a 
clerk of pardons at an annual salary of $2,000, and 
three clerks of the fourth class." — Siatufes at Large, 
Vol. XIV, p. 206. 

It cannot be doubted that this provision was 
more than ample, for Congress by act of July 
23, 18(58, repealed so much as authorized a 
clerk of pardons, and also one of the three 
clerks of the fourth class. Therefore, there 
could be no necessity for a levy of soldiers to 
perform the duties of secretaries, and the con- 
duct of the President can be explained only 
by the supposition that he preferred to be sur- 
rounded by Army oflicers rather than civilians, 
continuing in the Executive Mansion the tra- 
ditions ot headquarters — all of which, though 
agreeable to him and illustrating his character, 
wa3 an anomaly and a scatidal. 

In extenuation of this indefensible preten- 



sion, we have been reminded of two things : 
! first, that according to the record Washington 
I sent his first mossnge by General Kno.T, when 
in fact General Knox lield no military office 
at that time, but was actually Secretary of 
War; and secondly, that the military officers 
now occupying the Executive Mansion, are 
detailed for this service without other salary 
than that of their grade. As the Knox prece- 
dent is moonshine, the minor military ring can 
be vindicated only as a "detail" for service in 
the Executive Mansion. 

Here again the law shall speak. By act of 
Congress of March 3, 18(J3, it is provided that 
"details to special service shall only be made 
with the consent of the commanding officer of 
forces in the field; " but this, it will be seen, 
refers to a state of war. Congrt-ss by act of 
July 16, 1806, authorized the President "to 
detail from the Army all the officers and agents 
of this Bureau." [for the reiiefof Freedmen and 
Refugees.] {Statutes-at- Large. Vol. XIV, p. 
174;) also by act of July 28.1868, to "detail" 
officers of the Army, not exceeding twenty at 
any time, to act aa President, Superintendent, 
or Professor in certain colleges. {Ibid . Vol. 
XIV. p. 336.) And then again by July 15, 
1870, it provided that " any retired officer may, 
on his own application, be detailed to serve as 
piofessor in any college." [Ibid., Vol. XVl, 
p. 320.) As there is no other statute authorizing 
details, this exceptional transfer of Army offi- 
cers to the Executive Mansion can be main- 
tained only on some undefined prerogative. 

The presidential pretension, which is con- 
tinued to the present time, is the more unnat- 
ural when it is considered that there are at 
least three different statutes in which Congress 
has shown its purpose to limit the employment 
of military officers in civil service. As long 
ago as July 5, 1838, it was explicitly provided 
that no Army officers should be separated 
from their regiments and corps "for employ- 
ment on civil works of internal improvement 
or be allowed to engage in the service of in- 
corporated companies;" nor any line officer 
to be acting paymaster or disbursing agent 
for the Indian department, if such extra 
employment require ihat he be separated from 
his regiment or company or otherwise inter- 
fere with the performance of the military duties 
proper." {Statutes at Large, Vol. V, p. 200.) 
Obviously the will of Congress is here declared 
that officers should not be allowed to leave 
their posts for any service which might inter- 
fere with the performance of the military 
duties proper. This language is explicit. 
Then came the act of March 30, 1867, which 
provides that "any officer of the Army or 
Navy of the United States who shall, after 
the passage of this act, accept or hold any 
appointment in the diplomatic or consular ser- 
vice of the Government, shall be considered 



18 



as having resigned his said ofEce, and the place 
held by bim in the military or naval service shall 
be deemed and taken to be vacant." {Ibid., 
Vol. XV, p. 125.) To a considerate and cir- 
cumspect President who recognized the law 
in its spirit as well as its letter this provision, 
especially when reenforced by the earlier stat- 
ute, would have been a rule of action in anal- 
ogous cases, and therefore an insurmountable 
obstacle to a pretension which takes Army 
officers from their proper duties and makes 
them presidential secretaries. A later statute 
adds to the obstacle. By act of Congress of 
July 15, 1870, it is provided — 

"That it shall not be lawful for any ofBcer of the 
Army of the United Slates on the active list to hold 
any civil offi,"e, whether by election or appointment, and 
any such otJioer accepting or exercising the/unctions 
of a civil oJiceiihAl\ at onee cease to be an officer of 
the Army, and hiscommi.-ision shall be vacated there- 
by."— ^'<a(ii(e«-a<-//aj-t/e, Vol. XVI, p. 319. 

It is difficult to imagine anything plainer than 
these words. No Army officer not on the 
retired list can hold any civil office; and then 
to enforce the inhibition, it is provided that in 
" accepting or exercising the functions " of 
such office the commission is vacated. Now, 
the Blue Book, which is our political almanac, 
has under the head of "Executive Mansion," 
a list of "secretaries and clerks," beginning 
as follows : " Secretaries, General F. T. Dent, 
General Horace Porter, General 0. E. Bab- 
cock," when, in fact, there are no such offi- 
cers authorized by law. Then follow the 
"Private Secretary," "Assistant Private Sec- 
retary," and "Executive Clerks," authorized 
by law, but placed below those unauthorized. 
Nothing is said of being detailed for this pur- 
pose. They are openly called " Secretaries," 
which is a title of office; and since it is at the 
Executive Mansion, it must be a civil office; 
aad yet, in dedance of law, these Army officers 
continue to exercise its functions, and some 
of them enter the Senate with messages from 
the President. The apology that they are 
"detailed " for this service is vain; no author- 
ity can be shown for it. But how absurd to 
suppose that a rule against the exercise of a 
civil office can be evaded by a " detail." If 
it may be done for three Army officers why 
not for three dozen? Nay more, if the civil 
office of Secretary at the Executive Mansion 
may be created without law, why not some 
other civil office? And what is to hinder the 
President from surrounding himself not only 
with Secretaries, but with messengers, stewards, 
and personal attendants, even a body guard, all 
detailed from the Army ? Why may he not eu' 
large th6 military circle at the Executive Man- 
sion indefinitely? If the President can be jus- 
tified in his present course, there is no limit to 
his pretensions in open violation of the statute. 
Here the Blue Book testifies again, for it records 
the names of the " Secretaries" in their proper 



places as Army officers, thus presenting them 
as holding two incompatible offices. 

I dismiss this transaction as another instauco 
of presidential pretension which, in the in- 
terest of republican governmant, should be 
arrested. 

UNEEPUBLICAN StTBORDINATION OP THE WAB DEPAET- 
UENT TO THE GENEEAL-IN-CHIEP. 

From the Executive Mansion, pass now to 
the War Department, and there we witness 
the same presidential pretensions by which 
law, usage, and correct principle are lost ia 
the will of One Man. The supremacy of the 
civil power over the military is typified in the 
Secretary of War, a civilian, from whom Army 
officers receive orders. But this beautiful rule, 
with its lesson of subordination to the military 
was suddenly setaside by our President, and the 
Secretary of War degraded to be a clerk. The 
5lh of March witnessed a most important order 
from the President reconstituting the military 
departments covering the southern States and 
placing them under officers of his choice, which 
purported to be signed by the Adjutant Gen- 
eral, by command of the General of the Army, 
but actually igtioring the Secretary of War. 
Three days later witnessed another order pro- 
fessing to proceed from the President, whereby 
iu express terms the War Department was sub- 
ordinated to the General-in-Chief, being Wil- 
liam T. Sherman, who at the time was promoted 
to that command. Here are the words: " The 
chiefs of staff, corps, departments, and bureaus 
will report to and act under the immediate 
orders of the General commanding the Army." 
This act of revolution, exalting the military 
power above the civil, showed instant fruits 
in an order of the General, who, upon assum- 
ing command, proceeded to pl^e the several 
bureau officers of the War Department upon 
his military staff, so that for the time there 
was a military dictatorship with the President 
as its head not merely in spirit, but in actual 
lorm. By and by John A. Kawlins, a civilian 
by education and a respecter of the Constitu- 
tion, became Secretary of War, and, though 
bound to the President by personal ties, he 
said "check to the King." By General Order, 
issued from the War Department March 26, 
1869, and signed by the Secretary of War, the 
offensive order was rescinded, and it was 
enjoined that "all official business which by 
law or regulation requires the action of the 
President or Secretary of War will be submitted 
by the chiefs of staff, corps, departments, and 
bureaus to the Secretary of War." Public 
report said that this restoration of the civil 
power to its rightful supremacy was not ob- 
tained without an intimation of resignation on 
the part of the Secretary. 

THE SECBKTABY OP THE NAVY BY DltPUTY. 

Kindred in character was the unprecedented 



19 



attempt to devolve the duties of the Navy 
Department upon a deputy, so that orders were 
to be signed ''A. E. Borie, Secretary of the 
Navy, per D. D. Porter, Admiral," as appears 
in the official journal of May 11. 18G'.), or, 
according to another instance, "Daniel D. 
Porter, Vice Admiral, for the Secretary of the 
Navy." The obvious object of this illejijal 
arrangement was to enable the incumbent, 
who stood high on the list of gift makers, to 
be Secretary without being troubled with the 
business of the office. Notoriously he was an 
invalid who, according to his own confession, 
modestly pleaded that he could not apply him- 
self to work more than an hour a day ; but the 
President soothed his anxieties by promising 
a deputy who would do the wosk. And thus 
was this great Department made a plaything ; 
but public opinion and other counsels arrested 
the sport. Here I mention that when this 
incumbent left his important post it is under- 
stood that he was allowed to nominate his 
successor. 

TRKSIDENTIAL PRETENSION AT THE INDIAN BUREAU. 

At the same time occurred the effort to 
absorb the Indian Bureau into the War 
Department, changing its cliaracter as part of 
the civil service. Congress had already repu- 
diated such an attempt, but the President, not 
disheartened by legislative failure, sought to 
accomplish it by manipulation and indirection. 
First elevating a member of his late staff to the 
head of the bureau, he then by a military 
order, dated May 7, 1869, proceeded to detail 
for the Indian service a long list of "officers 
left out of their regimental organization by the 
consolidation of the infantry regiments," 
assuming to do this by authority of the act of 
Congress of JuneSO, 1834, which, afterdeclar- 
ing the number of Indian agents and how 
they shall be appointed, provides that " it shall 
be cojnpelent for the President to require any 
military officer of the United States to execute 
thedutiesof Indian Sigent.'^ [Statutes at- Large 
Vol. IV, p. 736.) Obviously this provision 
had reference to some exceptional exigency 
and can be no authority for the general sub- 
stitute of military officers instead of civilians 
confirmed by the Senate and bound with 
sureties for the faithful discharge of their 
duties. And yet upward of sixty Army 
officers were in this way foisted into the 
Indian service. 'I he act of Congress of July 
15, 1870, already quoted, creating an incom- 
patibility between military service and civil, 
was aimed especially at this abuse, and these 
officers ceased to be Itidian agents. But this 
attempt is another illustration of presidential 
pretension. 

1IILIT4.BT INTERFKRKNCI? AT ELECTICWS. 

Then followed military interference in elec- 
tions, and the repeated use of the.- military iu aid i 



of the Revenue Law under circumstances of 
doubtful legality, until at last General ilalleck 
and General Sherman protested ; the former, 
in his report of October 21, 1870, saying, " X 
respectfully repeat the recommendation of my 
last annual report, that military officers should 
not interfere in local civil difficulties, unless 
called out iu the mar.ner provided by law;" 
and the latter, in his re|)Ort of November 10, 
1870, " I think the soldiers ought not to be 
expected to make individual arrests, or to do 
any act of violence except in their capacity as 
a posse comitatus duly summoned by the 
United Stales marshal and acting in his per- 
sonal presence." And so this military pre- 
tension, invading civil affairs, was arrested, 

PRESIUEN'TIAL PRETENSION AGAIN. 

Meanwhile this same presidential usurpation 
subordinating all to himself, became palpable 
in another form. It was said of Gustavus 
Adolphus that he drilled his Diet to vote at the 
word of command. Such at the outset seemed 
to be the presidential policy with regard to 
Congress. We were to vote as he desired. He 
did not like the tenure of office act, and dur- 
ing the first nionih of his administration his 
influence was felt in both branches of Congress 
to secure its repeal — all of which seemed more 
astonishing when it was considered that he en- 
tered upon his high trust with the ostentatious 
avowal that all laws would be faithfully exe- 
cuted whether they met his approval or not, 
and that he should have no policy to enforce 
against the will of the people. That beneficent 
statute which he had upheld in the impeach- 
ment of President Johnson was a limitation 
on the presidential power of appointment, and 
he could not brook it. Here was plain inter- 
ference "with his great perquisite of office, and 
Congress must be coerced to repeal it. The 
House acted promptly and passed the desired 
bill. In the Senate there was delay and a 
protracted debate, during which the official 
journal announced ; 

" The President, in conversation with aprominent 
Sen.itor a i'ew day3 since, declared tbat it was his 
intention not to semi iu any nomination until defin- 
ite action was taken by Congress upon the tenure- 
of-oflioe bill." 

Here I venture to add that a member of tho 
Cabinet pressed me to withdraw my opposition 
to the repeal, saying that the President fe!t 
strongly upon it. I could not understand how a 
Republican President could consent to weaken 
the limitations upon the Executive, and so I 
said, adding, that in my judgment he should 
rather reach forth his hands and ask to have 
them tied. Better always a j;oreroment of law 
than of men. 

PRESIDENTIAL INTKBFBRKNCK IN LOCAL POLITICS. 

In this tyrannical spirit, aud in the assump* 
lion of his oeutcai iiuperialism, he has inter- 
fered with political questions aud party move- 



20 



ments in distant States, reaching into Missouri 
and then into New York to dictate how the 
people should vote, then manipulating Louis- 
iana through a brother-in law appointed col- 
lector. \Vith him a custom-house seems less 
a place for the collection of i-evenue than an 
engine of political influence through which his 
dictatorship may be maintained. 

Authentic testimony places this tyrannical 
abuse beyond question. New York is the 
scene and Thomas Murphy, collector, the 
Presidential lieutenant. Nobody doubts the 
intimacy between the President and the col- 
lector, who are bound to each other by other 
ties than those of sea side neighborhood. The 
collector was determined to obtain the control 
of the Republican State convention, and ap- 
pealed to a patriot citizen for help, who re- 
plied that iu his judgment "it would be a 
delicate matter for office holders to undertake 
to dictate to the associations in the different 
districts who should go from them to the State 
convention, and still more delicate to attempt 
to control the judgments of men employed in 
the different departments as to the best men 
to represent them." The brave collector lieu- 
tenant of the President said "that he should 
not hesitate to do it; that it was General 
Grant's wish, and General Grant was the head 
of the Ptepublican party, and should be au- 
thority on this subject." {New York Cus- 
tom-House Investigation, Vol. 1, p. 581. 
Testimony of General Palmer.) Plainly, the 
Republican party was his perquisite, and all 
Republicans were to do his bidding. From 
the same testimony it appears that the Presi- 
dent, according to the statement of his lieu- 
tenant, "wanted to be represented in t4ie con- 
vention," being the Republican State conven- 
tion of New York ; " wanted to have his friends 
therein the convention;" and the presiden- 
tial lieutenant, being none other than the 
famous collector, offered to appoint four men 
in the custom house if the witness would secure 
the nomination of certain persons as delegates 
from his district, and he promised " that he 
would immediately send their names on to 
Washington and have them appointed." {Ibid., 
p. 626. Testimony of William Atkinson.) And 
so the Presidential dictatorship was admin- 
istered. Offices in the custom-house were 
openly bartered for votes in the State conven- 
tion. Here was intolerable tyranny, with de- 
moralization like that of the slave market. 
But New York is not the only scene of this 
outrage. The presidential pretension extends 
everywhere ; nor is it easy to measure the 
arrogance of corruption or the honest indigna- 
tion that it quickeas into life. 

PEESIDENTIAL CONTRIVANCE AGAINST ST. DOMINGO. 

These presidential pretensions in all their 
variety, personal and military, with reckless 
indifference to law, naturally ripened in the 



contrivance, nursed in hot-house secrecy, 
against the peace of the island of St. Do- 
mingo — I say deliberately, against the peace 
of that island, for under the guise of annex- 
ing a portion there was menace to the 
Black Republic of Hayti. This whole busi- 
ness, absolutely indefensible from beginning 
to end, being wrong at every point, is the spe- 
cial and most characteristic product of the 
Administration, into which it infused and pro- 
jected itself more than into anything else. In 
this multiform disobedience we behold our 
President. Already 1 have referred to this 
contrivance as marking an epoch in presiden- 
tial pretensions. It is my duty now to show 
its true character as a warning against its 
author. 

A few weeks only after beginning his career 
as a civilian, and while occupied with military 
usurpations and the perquisii es of office, he was 
tempted by overtures of Dominican plotters, 
headed by the usurper Baez and the specu- 
lator Cazneau, the first an adventurer, con- 
spirator, and trickster, described by one who 
knows him well as "'the worst man living of 
whom he has any personal knowledge," and 
the second, one of our own countrymen long 
resident on the island, known as disloyal 
throughout the war, and entirely kindred in 
character to Baez. Listening to these prompt- 
ers, and without one word m Congress or in 
the press suggesting annexion of the island 
or any part of it, the President began his con- 
trivance, and here we see abuse in every form 
and at evei'y step, absolutely without prece- 
dent in our history. 

The agent in this transaction was Orville E. 
Babcock, a young officer figuring in the Blue 
Book of the time as one of the unauthorized 
" secretaries" at the Executive Mansion, and 
also as a major of engineers. His publi,shed 
instructions under date of July 17, 18G9, were 
simply to make inquiries ; but the plot appears 
in a communication of the same date from the 
Secretary of the Navy, directed to the Semi- 
nole, a war-ship, with an armament of one 
eleven-inch gun and four thirty-two pound- 
ers, " to give him the moral support of its 
guns ;" and this was followed by a telegraphic 
instruction to Key West for another war-ship 
" to proceed without a moment's delay to San 
Domingo City, to be placed at the disposal of 
General Babcock while on that coast." With 
such " moral support" the emissary of the 
President obtained from the usurper Baez that 
famous protocol stipulating the annexion of 
Dominica to the United States in considera- 
tion of $1,500,000, which the young officer, 
fresh from the Executive Mansion, professed 
to execute as "Aid de-Camp of his Excellency 
General Ulysses S. Grant, President of the 
United States," as if, instead of Chief Magis- 
. trate of a Republic, the President were a mil- 



21 



itary chieftain with his foot, in the stirrup, sur- 
romided by a military staff. The same instru- 
ment contained the unblusliing stipuhition that 
"his Excellency Gtnenil (irant. President of 
the Unitrd States, promises jiiioateli/ to uxe 
all his iiijluence in order that the idea of 
annexing the Dominican Republic to the 
United Slates may acquire such a degree of 
popularity among the members of Congress 
as will be necessary lor its accomplishment," 
which ist'imply that the President shall become 
a lobbyist to bring about the annexion by 
Congress. Such was the strange beginning, 
illegal, unconstitutional, and offensive in every 
particular, but showing the presidential char- 
acter. 

On his return to Washington the young offi- 
cer, who had assumed to l)e "Aid-de-Camp 
of his Excellency General Ulysses S. Grant" 
and had bound the President to become a 
lobbyist for a wretched scheme, instead of 
being disowned and reprimanded, was sent 
back to the usurper with instructions- to nego- 
tiateJ^wo treaties, one for the annexion of the 
half island of Uoininica and the other for the 
lease of the bay of Samana. By the Consti- 
tution ot tlie Uniti-d States ''embassadors and 
other public ministers" are appointed by the 
President, by and with the advice and consent 
of the Senate; but our Aid-de Camp had no 
such commission. Presidential prerogative 
empowered him, nor was naval force wanting. 
With three war ships at his disposal he entered 
upon negotiation with Baez and obtained the 
two treaties. Naturally force was needed to 
keep the usurper in power while he sold his 
country, and naturally such a transaction re- 
quired a presidential Aid-de-Camp unknown 
to Constitution or law, rather than a civilian 
duly appointed according to both. 

PRKSIDESTIAL VIOLATIONS OF C0N3ITUTI0NAL AND 
INTKR.NATIOXAL LAW. 

On Other occasions it has been my solemn 
duty to expose the outrages which attended 
this hatelul business, where at each step we 
are brought face to face with presidential pre- 
tension ; hrst, in the open sei/.ure of the war 
powers of the Government, as if he were 
already Caesar, forcibly intervening in Doinin 
ica and menacing war to Hayti, all ot which 
is proved by the otUcial reports of the State 
Department and Navy Department, being 
nothing less than war by kingly prerogative in 
detiance of that distinctive principle of repub- 
lican government, first embodied in our Con- 
stitution, which places the war powers under 
the safeguard ot the legislative branch, making 
any attempt by the President " to declare 
war" an undoiib'ed usurpation. But our 
President, like Gullio. cares for none of these 
things. The open violation of the Consiiiu 
tion was naturally followed by a barefaced 
disregard of that equality of nations, which is 
the first principle of InteiT.at.ions.! I.-.t, r.-''^'^ 



equality of men is the first principle of tho 
Declaration of Independence ; and this sacred 
rule was set aside in order to insult and men- 
ace Hayti, doing unto the Black Republic 
what we would not have that Republic do unto 
us, nor what we would have done to any white 
Power. To these eminent am] m«)st painful 
presiilential prntensions. the lirst adverse to the 
Constitution and the second adverse to Inter- 
national Law, add the imprisonment of an 
American citizen in Dominica by the presi- 
dential confederate Baez for fear of his hos- 
tility to the treaty if he were allowed to reach 
New York, all of which was known to his 
subordinates, Babcock and Caznean, and 
dimblless to himself. What was the liberty 
of an American citizen compared with the 
presidential prerogative? To one who had 
defied the Constitution, on which depends the 
liberty of all, and then defied International Law, 
on which depends the peace of the world, a 
single citizen immured in a distant dungeon 
was of small moment. But this is only an 
iiiustration. Add now tlie lawless occupation 
of the Bay of Samana for many months after 
the lapse of the Treaty, kee|)ing the national 
fl:ig flying there and assuming a territorial sov- 
ereignty which did not exist. Then add the pro- 
tracted support of Baez in his usurped power 
to the extent of placing the national flag at his 
disposal, and girdling the island with our ship* 
of war, all at immense cost and to the neglect 
of other service where the Navy was needed. 

FRESIDKNTIAL EFFORTS FOR TUK CONTRI V ANCB. 

This Strange succession of acts, which if 
established for a precedent would overturn 
Constitution and law, was followed by another 
class of presidential manilestatioiis, being, 
first, an unseemly importunity of .Senators 
during the pendency of the Treaty, visiting the 
Capitol as a lobbyist and summoning them to 
his presence in squads in obvious pursuance 
of the stipulation made by his Aid-de-Camp 
and never disowned by him, being intervention 
in the Senate, roenforced by all the influence 
of the appointing power, whether by reward or 
menace, all o-f which was as unconstitutional 
ill character as that warlike intervention on 
the island; and then, after debate in the 
Senate, when the treaty was lost on solemn 
vote, we were called to witness his self-wiiled 
effrontery in prosecuting the fatal error, return- 
ing to the charge in his Annual Message at 
the ensuing session, insisting upon his con- 
trivance as nothiihg less than the means by 
which "our large deht abroad is to be ulti- 
mately exiingni.shed," and gravely charging 
the Se"nate with "folly" in rejecting the treaty, 
and yet while making this astoumling charge 
aiiainst a coordinate branch of Government, 
and claiming such astounding profits, he 
blundered geographically iu uescribiug the 



22 



AH this diversified performance, with its 
various eccentricity of effort, failed. The re- 
port of able commissioners transported to 
the island in an expensive war-ship ended in 
nothing. The American people rose against 
the undertaking and insisted upon its aban- 
donment. By a message charged with Parthian 
shafts the President at length announced that 
he would proceed no further in this business. 
His senatorial partisans, being a majority of 
the Chamber, after denouncing those who had 
exposed the business, arrested the discussion. 
In obedience to irrepressible sentiments, and 
according to the logic of my life, I felt it my 
duty to speak, but the President vyould not 
forgive rae, and his peculiar representatives 
found me disloyal to the party which I had 
served so long and helped to found. Then 
•was devotion to the President made tke shib- 
boleih of party. 

WHERE WAS THE GRAND INQUEST OF THE NATION? 

Such is a summary of the St. Domingo busi- 
ness in ils characteristic features ; but here are 
transgressions in every form — open violation 
of the Conslimtion in^nore than one essential 
requirement, open violation of International 
Law in more than one of its most beautiful 
principles, flngrant insult to the Black Repub- 
lic wiih menace of war, complicity with tlie 
wrongful imprisonment of an American citi- 
zen, lawless assumption of territorial sov- 
ereignty in a foreign jurisdiction, employment 
of the national Navy to sustain a usurper, 
being all acts of substance, maintained by an 
agent calling iiimself^" Aid-de Camp of Ulys- 
ses S. Grant, President of the United Siates," 
and stipulating that his chief should play the 
lobbyist to help the contrivance through Con- 
gress, then urged by private appeals to Sen- 
ators and the influence of the appointing 
power tyrannically employed by the presi- 
dential lobbyist, and finally urged anew in an 
Annual Message where undisguised insult, to 
the Senate vies with absurdity in declaring 
prospective profits and with geographical igno- 
rance. Such, in brief, is this multiform dis- 
obedience, where every particular is of such 
aggravation as to merit the most solemn judg- 
ment. Why iJie Grand Inquest of the nation, 
which brought Andrew Johnson to the bar of 
the Senate, should have slept on this con- 
glomerate misdemeanor, every part of which 
was offensive beyond any technical offense 
charged against his predecessor, while it had 
a back-ground of nepotism, gift-taking offi- 
cially compensated, and various presidential 
pretensions beyond all precedent — all this will 
be one of the riddles of American history, to 
be explained only by the extent to which the 
One Man Power had succeeded m subjugating 
the Government. 

INDIGNITY TO THE AFRICAN RACE. 

Let me confess, sir, that, while at each stage 



I have felt this tyranny most keenly, and never 
doubted that it ought to be arrested by im- 
peachment, my feelings have been most stirred 
by the outrage to Ilayti, which, besides being 
a wrong to the Black Republic, was an insult 
to the colored race not only abroad but here 
at home. How a Chief Magistrate with four 
millions of colored fellow-citizens could have 
done this thing passes comprehension. Did 
he suppose it would not be known? Did he 
imagine it could be hushed in official pigeon- 
holes? Or was he insensible to the true char- 
acter of his own conduct? Tiie facts are 
indisputable. For more than two gptierations 
Hayii had been independent, eniiiled under 
International Law to equality among nations, 
and since emancipation in our country, com- 
mended to us as an example of self-gov- 
ernment, being the first in the hi.«tory of the 
African race and the promise of ihe future. 
And yet our President, in his effort to secure 
that Naboth's vineyard on which he had set 
his eyes, not content with maintaining the 
usurper Baez in power, occupying the harbors 
of Dominica with war-ships, sent other war- 
ships, being none other than our most power- 
ful monitor, the Dictator, with the frigate Sev- 
ern as consort, and with yet other monitors in 
their train to strike at the independence of the 
Black Republic and to menace it with war. 
Do I err in any way, am I not entirely riglic 
when I say that here was unpardonable out- 
rage to the African race? As one who for 
years has stood by the side of this much- 
oppressed people, sympathizing always in 
their woes and struggling tor them, I felt the 
blow which the President dealt, and it became 
the more intolerable from the heartless at- 
tempts to defend it. Alas! that our Presi- 
dent should be willing to wield the giant 
strength of the grent Republic in trampling 
upon the representative Government of the 
African race. Alas ! that he did not see the 
infinite debt of friendship, kindness, and pro- 
tection due to that people, so that instead of 
monitors and war-ships, breathing violence, 
he had sent a messenger of peace and good 
will. 

This outrage was followed by an incident 
in which the same sentiments were revealed. 
Frederick Douglass, remarkable for his intelli- 
gence as for his eloquence, and always agree- 
able in personal relations, whose only otiense 
is a skin not entirely Caucasian, was selected 
by the President as one of the commissioners 
to visit St. Domingo, and yet on his return, 
and almost within sight of the Executive 
Mansion, he was repelled from the common 
table of the mail steamer on the Potomac, 
where the other commissioners were already 
sealed, and thus through him was the African 
race insulted, and their equal rights denied, 
but the President whose commission he had 
borne neither did or said anything to right 



23 



this wrong, and a few days later, when enter- 
tainiii!^ tlie commissioners at the Exe«utive 
Mansion, sctiially fors^ot the ooh^rpii orator 
whose services he liad sougiit. But this indig- 
nity is in unison witli the rest. After insiilt,- 
ing the Bhicii Republic, it is easy to see how 
natural it was to treat with insensibility the 
representative ot" the African race. 

ALL THESK THINGS I.V ISSUE NOW. 

Here I stay this painfid presentment in its 
various heads, beginning with Nepotism and 
Gift-taking olficiaily compensated, and ending 
in the contrivance against St. Domingo with 
indignity to the At'rican race, not because it 
is complete, but because it is enough. With 
sorrow unspeakable have I made this ex- 
posure of pretensions which ibr the sake of 
kepul)lican Institutions every good citizen 
should wish expunged from history ; but I 
had no alternative. The President himself 
insists upon putting them in issue ; he will not 
allow them to be forgotten. As a candidate 
for reelection he invites judgment, while par- 
tisans acting in his behalf make it absolutely 
necessary by the brutality of their assault on 
faithful Republicans unwilling to see their 
party, like the presidential olHce, a personal 
perquisite. If his partisans are exacting, viti- 
dictive, and unjust, they act only in harmony 
with his own nature too truly represented in 
them. There is not a ring, whether military 
or senatorial, that does not derive its distinct- 
ive character from himself. Therefore what 
they do and what they say must be considered 
as done and said by the chieftain they serve. 
And here is a new manifestation of that sov- 
eign egotism which no taciturnity can cover 
up, and a new motive for inquiry into its per- 
nicious influence. 

THE GREAT PRESIDENTIAL QUARRELER. 

Any presentment of the President would be 
imperfect which did not show how thisungov- 
ernable personality breaks forth in quarrel, 
making him the great presidential quarreler of 
our history. As in nepotism, gift-taking offi- 
cially compensated, and presidential preten- 
sions generally, here again he is foremost, hav- 
ing quarreled not only more than any other 
President, but more than all others together 
from George Washington to himself. His own 
Cabinet, the Senate, the House of Representa- 
tives, the diplomatic service and the civil ser- 
vice generally, all have their victims, nearly 
every one of whom, besides serving the Repub- 
lican party, had helped to make him President. 
Nor have Army officers, his companions in 
the field, or even his generous patrons, been 
exempt. To him a quarrel is not only a con- 
stant necessity but a perquisite of office. To 
nurse a quarrel, like lending a horse, is in his 
list of presidential duties. How idle must he 
be should the woids of Shakspeare be fulfilled, 



"This day all qnarrelad^e '' To him may be 
applied those other words of Shakspeare, *' as 
qiiarrel(^us as the weasel." 

Evidently our President has never read the 
Eleventh Commandment: "A President of 
the United States shall never quarrel." At 
least he lives in perpetual violation of it, list- 
ening to stories from horse cars, gobbling the 
gossip of his military ring, discoursing on im- 
aginary griefs, and nursing his unjust anger. 
The elect of forty millions of people has no 
right to quarrel with anybody. His position 
is too exalted. He cannot do it without 
offense to the requirements of patriotism, 
without a shock to the decencies of life, 
without a jar to the harmony of the universe. 
If lesson were needed for his conduct he 
might find it in that King of Frtmce, who, on 
asceniiing the throne, made haste to declare 
that he did not remember injuries received as 
Dauphin. Perhaps a better model still would 
be Tancred, the acknowledged type of ilie per- 
fect Christian knight, who " disdained to s()eak 
ill of whoever it might l;>e, even when ill had 
been spoken of himself." Our soldier Pres- 
ident could not err in following this knightly 
exatnple. If this were too much then at least 
might we ho|>e that he would consent to limit 
the sphere of his quarrelsome operations, so 
that the public service might not be disturbed. 
Of this be assured. In every quarrel he is the 
offender, according to the fact, as according 
to every reasonable presumption ; es[)ecially 
is he responsible for its continuance. The 
President can always choose his relations with 
any citizen. But he chooses discord. With 
the arrogance of arms he resents any imped- 
iment in his path, as when, in the spring of 
1870, without allusion to himself, I fell it my 
duty to oppose his St. Domingo contrivance. 
The verse of Juvenal, as translated by Drydeu 
{Satires, 111,464, 468,) describes his conduct. 

" Poor me he fights, if that be fighting, where 
Ue only cudguls, and I only boar." 

"Answer or answer not, 'tis all the same, 
lie lays mo on and makes me boar the blame." 

Another scholarly translator gives to this 
description of the presidentitil quarrel another 
form, which is also applicable: 

" If that be deemed a quarrel ^here. heaven knows, 
lie only gives and I receive the blows— 
Across my path he strides and bids me stand I — 
I bow obsequious to the dread command." 
If the latter verse is not entirely true in my 
case, something must be pardoned to that 
liberty in which I was born. 

Men take their places in history according 
to their deeds. The flattery of life is then 
superseded by the truthful record, and ru'era 
do not escape judgment. Loui'^ X, of France, 
has the designation of Le Hntin or '' Tne 
Quarreler," by which he is known in the long 
1 line of French kings. And so iu the long lin* 



24 



of American Chief Magistrates has our Pres- 
ident vindicated for himself the same title. He 
must wear it. The French monarch was 
younger than our President; but there are 
other points in his life which are not without 
parallel. According to a contemporary chron- 
icle he was " well-disposed but not very atten- 
tive to the needs of the kingdom" — volenti/ 
inais pas bieii eatentif en ce qu'au royaume il 
falloit ; and then again it was his rare foriune 
to sign one of ihegreatest ordinances of French 
history, declaring that according to nature all 
men have the right to be free; but the Quar- 
reler was in no respect author of this illus- 
trious act, and was moved to its adoption by 
considerations of personal advantage. It will 
be for impartial history to determine if our 
Quarreler, who treated his great ofBce as a 
personal perquisite, and all his life long was 
against that Enfranchisement to which he put 
his name, does not fall into the same category. 

DUTY OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 

Here I stop, and now the question of duty 
is presented to the Republican party. I like 
that word It is at the mandate ofduty that 
■we must act. Do the presidential pretensions 
merit the sanction of the party ? Can Repub- 
licans without departing from all obligations, 
•whether of party or patriotism, recognize our 
ambitious Caesar as a proper representative? 
Can we take the fearful responsibility of his 
prolonged empire? I put these questions 
solemnly, as a member of the Republican 
party, wiih all the earnestness of a life devoted 
to the triumph of this party, but which I 
served always with the conviction that I gave 
up nothing that was meant for country or 
mankind. With me the party was country 
and mankind; but with the adoption of all 
these presidential pretensions, the pariy loses 
its distinctive character and drops from its 
sphere. Its creed ceases to be Republicanism 
and becomes Grantism ; its members cease to 
be Republicans and become Grant-men. It 
is no longer a political party, but a jiersonal 
party. For myself, I say openly, 1 am no 
man's man; nor do I belong to any personal 
party. 

ONE TERM FOE PRESIDENT. 

The attempt to cKange the character of the 
Republican party begins by assault on the 
principle of One Term for President. There- 
fore must our support of this requirement be 
made manifest; and here we have the testimony 
of our President and what is stronger, his 
example, sliowing the necessity of such limita- 
tion. Auihi-ntic report attests that before his 
nomination he declared that " The liberties 
of the country cannot be maintained without a 
One Term amendment of the Constitution." 
At this time Mr. Wade was pressing this very 
amendment. Then after his nomination, and 



while his election was pending, the organ of 
the Republican party at. Washington, where he 
resided, commended him constantly as faithful 
to the principle. The Morning Chronicle of 
June 3, 1869, after the canvass had commenced, 
proclaimed of the candidate, '^He is, moreover^ 
an advocate of the One Term principle as con- 
ducing toward the proper administration of the 
law — a principle with which so many prominent 
Republicans have identified themselves that it 
may be accepted as an article of party faith." 
Then again, July 14, the same organ insisted, 
" Let not Congress adjourn without passing the 
One Term amendment to the Constitution. 
There has never been so favorable an opportun- 
ity. All pariiesareiufavorof it. General Grant 
is in favor of it. The party that supports Gen- 
eral Grant demands it, and above all else pub- 
lic morality calls for it." Considering that these 
pledges were made by an organ of the party, 
and in his very presence, they may be accepted 
as proceeding from him. His name must be 
added to the list with Andrew Jackson, William 
Henry Harrison, Henry Clay, and Benjamin 
F. Wade, all of whom are enrolled against the 
reeliglbility of a President. 

But his example as President is more than 
his testimony in showing the necessity of 
this limitation. Andrew Jackson did not hes- 
itate to say that it was required in order to 
place the President " beyond the reach of any 
improper influence and uncommitted to any 
other course th.iu the strict liue of constitu- 
tional duty." William Henry Harrison fol- 
lowed in declaring that with the adoption of 
this principle "the incumbent would devote 
all his time to the public interest and there 
would be no cause to misrule the country." 
Henry Clay was satisfied after much observa- 
tion and reflection " that too much of the 
time the thoughts and the exertions of the 
incumbent are occupied during the first term 
in Securing his reelection." Benjamin F. 
Wade, after denouncing the reelis^ibility of the 
President, said: "There are defects in the 
Constitution, and this is among the most 
glaring." 

And now our President by his example, 
besides his testimony, vindicates all these 
authorities. He makes us see how all that has 
been predicted of Presidents seeking reelec- 
tion is fulfilled ; how this desire dominates 
official conduct; how naturally the resources 
of the Government are employed to serve a 
personal purpose; how the national interests 
are subordinate to individual advancement; 
how all questions, foreign or dcmesiic, whether 
of treaties or laws, are handled with a view to 
electoral votes; how the appointing power 
lends itself to a selfish will, acting now by the 
temptation of oSce and then by the menace 
of removal; and, since every otSceholder and 
every oiEceseeker has a brevet commission in 



25 



the preHoniinant political pHrly, how the Pres- 
ident, desiring reelt-ciion, becomes the active 
head of three cdoperiniiig armies, the army 
of officeholders eighty thousand strong, the 
larger army of oQiceseekers, and the army of 
the political party, the whole constituting a 
consolidated power which no candidate can 
possess without peril to his country. Of these 
vast cooperating armies the President is com- 
mander-in-ciiief and generalissimo. 'Ihrough 
these he holds in submission even Represent- 
atives and Senators, and makes the country 
his vassal with a condition not unlike that of 
martial law whvre the disobedient are shot, 
while the various rings help secure the prize. 
That this is not too strong appears from testi- 
mony before a Senate Con)mitiee, where a pres- 
idential lieutenantboldly denouncedaneminent 
New York ciiizen, who was a prominent can- 
didate for Governor, as "obnoxious to General 
Grant," and, then with an effrontery like 
the presidential pretension, announced that. 
" President Grant was the representative and 
head of tlie Republican party, and all good 
Republicans should support him in all his 
measures and appointments, and any one who 
did not do it should be crushed out." Such 
things leach how wise were those statesmen 
who would not subject the President to the 
temptation or even the suspicion of using his 
vast powers in promoting personal ends. 

Unquestionably the One Man Power has in- 
creased latterly beyond example, owing panly 
to the greater facilities of intercourse, espe- 
cially by telegraph, so that the whole country 
is easily reached ; partly to improvements in or- 
ganization, by which distant places are brought 
into unity; and partly ihrough the protracted 
prevalence of the military spirit created by the 
war. There was a time in English history 
M"hen the House of Commons, on the motion 
of the famous lawyer, Mr. Dunning, adopted 
the resolution: "That the influence of the 
Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought 
to be diminished." The same declaration is 
needed with regard to the President ; and the 
very words of the parliamentary patriot may 
be repealed. In his memorable speech, Mr. 
Dunnins;, alter saying that he did not rest ''upon 
proof idle to require," declared that the ques- 
tion '• must be decided by the consciences of 
those who, as a jury, were called to determine 
what was or was not within their own knowl- 
edge." {Hansard, Parliamentary History. 
April, 178U, Vol. XXI, p. 347.) It was on 
ground of notoriety cognizable to all that he 
acted. And precisely on ibis gri)und, but also 
with specitic proofs, do I insist that the intlu- 
ence of the President has increased, is increas- 
ing, and ought to be diminished. But in this 
excellent work, well worihy the best efforts of 
all, nothing is more important than is the 
Utnilutiou to cue term. 



There is a dt^mand for reform in the Civil 
Service, and the President formally adopts this 
demand ; but he neglects the lirsl step, which 
depends only on himself. Krom this we may 
judge his litile earnestness in the cause. Be- 
yond all question. Civil Service Rei'orm must 
begin by a limitation of the President to one 
term, so that the lemplalion to use ihe appoint- 
ing power for personal ends may disappear from 
our system, and this great disturbing force 
cease to exist. If the President is sincere for 
reform, it will be easy for him to set the exam- 
ple by declaring again his adhesion to the One- 
Term principle. But even if he fails we must 
do our duty. 

Therefore, in opposing the prolonged power 
of the present incumbent, I benin by insisting 
that, for the good of the country and without 
reference to any personal failure, no President 
should be a candidate for reelection ; and it is 
our duty now to set an example worihy of Re 
publican Insiimtions. In the name ol the One- 
Term principle, once recognized by him, and 
which needs no other evidence of its necessity 
than his own Presidency, I protest against his 
attempt to obtain another lease of power. 
But this protest is on the threshold. 

UNFITNESS FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL OPFICR. 

I protest against him as radically unfit for 
the presidential office, being essentially mili- 
tary in nature, without experience in civil life, 
without aptitude for civil duties, and without 
kr>owledge of Republican Instiiuiions, all of 
which is perfectly apparent, unless we are 
ready to assume that the matters and things 
get forth to-day are of no account — and then 
declare in further support of the candidate, 
boldly that nepotism in a President is noih- 
ine, that gift-taking with repayment in official 
patronage is nothing,- that violation of the 
Constitution and of law international and mu- 
nicipal is nothing, ihat indignity to the African 
race is nothing, that quarrel with political as- 
sociates is nothing, and that all his presiden- 
tial pretensions in their motley a;;gregation, 
being a new Caesarism or personal govern- 
ment, are nothing. Bur if these are all noth- 
ing, then is the Republican party nothing; 
nor is there any safeguard for Republicao 
Institutions. 

APOLOOIES. 

Two apologies'l hear. 

The first is that he means well and errs from 
want of knowledge. This is not much. It was 
said of Louis the Quarreller, that he meant 
well; nor is there a slate head-stone in any 
village burial ground that does not record as 
mucli of the humble lodger beneath. Some- 
thing more is needed for a President. iNor 
can we afford to perpetuate power in a ruler 
who errs so mucli from ignorance. Chanty 
for the past 1 coacede ; but uo iuvestiture lor 
the future. 



26 



The other apolopy is that his Presidency has 
been successful. How? When? Where? Not 
to him can be attributed thatgeneral prosperity 
which is the natural outgrowth of our people 
and country, for his contribution is not traced in 
the abounding result. Our golden fields, pro- 
ductive mines, busy industry, diversified com- 
merce owe nothing to him. Show, then, his 
success. Is it in the finances? The national 
debt has been reduced ; but not to so large 
an amount as by Andrew Johnson in the 
same ppace of time. Little merit is due to 
either, tor each employed the means allowed 
by Congress. To ihe American people is 
this reduction due, and not to any President. 
And while our President in this respect is no 
better ihan his predecessor, he can claim no 
merit for any systematic effort to reduce taxa- 
tion or restore specie payments. Perhaps, 
then, it is in foreign relations that he claims 
the laurels he is to wear. Knowing some 
thing of these from careful study and years of 
practical acquaintance, I am bound to say 
that never betbre has their management been 
80 wanting in ability and so absolutely without 
character. In every direction is muddle — 
muddle with Spain, muddle with Cuba, muddle 
■with the Black Republic, muddle with distant 
Corea, muddle with Venezuela, muddle with 
Russia, muddle with England — on all sides 
one diversified muddle. To this condition are 
■we reduced. When before in our history have 
we reached any such bathos as that to which 
we have been carried in our questions with 
England ? Are these the laurels for a presi- 
dential candidate? But where are they? Are 
they found on the Indian frontier? Let the 
cry of massacre and blood from that distant 
region answer. Are they in reform of the civil 
service? But here the initial point is the lim- 
itation of the President to one term, so that 
he may be placed above temptation ; but this 
he opposes. Evidently he is no true reformer. 
Are these laurels found in the administration 
of the Departments? Let the discreditable 
sale of arms to France in violation of neutral 
duties and of municipal statute be the answer, 
and let the custom houses of New York and 
New Orleans with their tales of favoritism and 
of nepotism, and with their prostitution as 
agencies, mercenary and political, echo, back 
the answer, while senatorial committees organ- 
ized contrary to a cardinal principle of Parlia- 
mentary Law as a cover to these scandals, tes- 
tify also. Where, then, are the laurels? At 
last I find them fresh and brilliant in the har- 
mony which the President has preserved among 
Republicans, ilarmony do 1 say ? This should 
have been his congenial task ; nor would any 
aid or homage of mine been wanting. But 
instead he has organized discord operating 
through a succession of rings, and for laurels 
we find only weeda aud thibtiea. 



But I hear that he is successful in the States 
once in rebellion. Strange that this should 
be said while we are harrowed by the reports 
of Ku Klux outrages. Here, as in paying the 
national debt, Congress has been the effect- 
ive power. Even the last extraordinary meas- 
ure became necessary, in my judgment, to 
supplement his little efficiency. Had the Pres- 
ident put into the protection of the colored 
people at tha South half the effort and earn- 
est will wiih which he maintained his St. 
Domingo contrivance, the murderous Ku Klux 
would have been driven from the field and 
peace assured. Nor has he ever exhibited to 
the colored people any true sympathy. His 
conduct to Frederick Douglass on his return 
from St. Domingo is an illustration, and so 
also was his answer to the committee of colored 
fellow-citizens seeking his countenance for 
the pending measure of Civil Rights. Some 
thought him indifferent ; others found him 
insulting. Then came his recent letter to the 
great meeting at Washington, May 9, 1872, 
called to assert these rights, whare he could 
say nothing more than this: "I beg to assure 
you, however, that I sympathize most cordially 
in any effort to secure for all our people of 
whatever race, nativity or color, the exercise 
of those rights to which every citizen should 
be entitled.^' Of course everybody is in favor 
of "the rights to which every citizen should 
be entitled." But what are these rights? 
And this meaningless juggle of words, entirely 
worthy of the days of slavery, is all that is 
vouchsafed by the President for the equal 
rights of his colored fellow-citizens. 

I dismiss the apologies with the conclusion 
that in the matters to which ihey invite atten- 
tion, his Presidency is an enormous failure. 

THE PRESIDEXT AS CANDIDATE. 

Lookingat his daily life as it becomes known 
through the press or conversation, his chief 
employment seems the dispensation of patron- 
age, unless society is an employment. For 
tliis he is v'lsited daily by Senators and Repre- 
sentatives bringing distant constituents. The 
Executive Mansion has become that famous 
treasury trough, described so well by an early 
Congressional orator : 

"Such running, such jostling, such wriggling, such 
clambering over one another's backs, such squealing 
because the tub is so narrow and the company is 
so crowded." — ,S'i>ee<^ of Josidh (Juincy, January 30, 
1811, Annals of Congress, page 851. 

To sit behind is the Presidential occnpatlon, 
watching and feeding the animals. 1 f this were 
an amusement only it might be pardoned ; but 
it must be seen in a more serious light. Some 
nations are governed by the sword, in other 
words by central force commanding obedience. 
Our President governs by offices, in other words 
by the appointing power, being a central force 
by whi<:li he coerces obedience to his personal 



27 



will. Let a Senator or Representative hesi 
tate in the support of his autocracy or doubt 
if he merits a second term, and forthwith 
eome disUnt consul or postmaster, appointed 
by his influence, begins to tremble. The 
"Head Centre" makes himself felt to the 
mostdistant circumference. Can such tyranny, 
where the miliiary spirit of our President finds 
a congenial Held, be permitted to endure? 

In adopting him as a candidate for reelec- 
tion we undertake to vindicate his Presidency, 
and adopt in all thint^s the insulting, incapable, 
aide-de-campish dictatorship which he hns 
inaugurated. Presenting his name we vouch 
for his fitness, not only ii\ original nattire, but 
in experience of civil life, in apiiiude for civil 
duties, in knowledge of Republican Institu- 
tions and elevation of purpose ; and we must 
be ready to defend openly what he has openly 
done. Can Republicans honestly do this thing ? 
Let it be said that he is not only the greatest 
nepotist -among Presidents, but greater than 
all others toge;her, and what Republican 
can reply? Let it be said that he is not only 
the greatest gifi-taker among Presidents, bui^ 
the only one who repaid his patrons at the 
public expense, and what Republican can re- 
ply? Let it be said that he has openly vio 
lated the Constitution and International Law, 
in the prosecution of a wretched contrivance 
against the peace of St. Domingo, and what 
Republican can reply? Let it be said that 
wielding the power of the Great Republic he 
has insulted ihe Black Republic with a menace 
of war, involving indignity to the Afiican race, 
and what Republican can reply ? Let it be said 
that he has set up presidential pretensions with- 
out number, constituting an undoubted Csesar- 
isin or personal government, and what Repub- 
lican can rcjdy? And let it be added that, 
unconscious of all this misrule, he quarrels 
without cause even with political supporters 
and on such a scale as to become the greatest 
presidential quarreler of our history, quarrel- 
ing more than all other Presidents together, 
and what Republican can reply? It will not 
be enough to say that he was triumphant in 
war. as Scipio, the victor of ilannibal, re- 
minded the Roman people that on this day 
he conquered at Zama. Others have been 
triumphant in war and failed in civil life, as 
Marlborough, whose heroic victories seemed 
unaccountable in the frivolity, the ignorance, 
and the hearilessness of his pretended states- 
manship. To Washington was awarded that 
rarest tribute, "first in war, first in peace, 
and first in the hearts of his countrymen." 
Of our President it will be said willingly, 
"first in war," but the candid historian will 
add, "first in nepotism, first in git'i-taking 
repaid by otBcial patroiuige, first in presi- 
dential pretensions, and first in quarrel with 
his countrymen." 



Anxiously, earnestly, the country asks for 
reform, and stands tip-toe to greet the com- 
ing. But how expect reform from a President 
who needs it so much himself? Who shall 
reform the reformer? So, also, does the coun- 
try ask for purity. Rut is it not vain to seek 
this boon from one whose presidential p.-eten- 
sions are so demoralizing? Who shall purify 
the purifier? The country asks for reform in 
the civil service, but how expect any such, 
change from one who will not allow the pres- 
idential office to be secured against its worst 
teiTifitation? The country desires an e.^am- 
ple forthe youth of the land, where intelligence 
shall blend with character and both be elevated 
by a constant sense of duty with unselfish de- 
votion to the public weal. But how accord 
this place to a President who m ikei his great 
office a plaything and perquisite, while his 
highest industry is in quarreling? Since San- 
cho Panza at Barataria no Governor has done 
so well for his relations at the expense of his 
country, and if any other has made Cabinet 
appointments the return for personal favors, 
his name has dropped out of history. A man 
is known by his acts ; so, also, by the company 
he keeps. And is not our President known 
by his intimacy with those who are by words 
of distrust? But all these by-words look to 
another term for perpetuation of their power, 
riierefore, for the sake of reform and purity, 
which is a longing ot the people, and also that 
the Chief Magistrate may be an example, we 
must seek a remedy. 

See for one moment how pernicious must 
be the presidential example. First in place, 
his personal influence is far-reaching beyond 
that of any other citizen. What he does others 
will do. What he fails to do others will fail 
to do. His standard of conduct will he ac- 
cepted at least by his political supporter^. 
His measure of industry and his sense of duty 
will be the pattern for the country. If he ap' 
points relations to office and repays gifts by 
official patronage making his Presidency, " a 
great Gift Enterprise," may not every office- 
bolder do likewise, each in his sphere, so that 
nepotism and gift-taking officially compensated 
will be general and gilt enterprises be multi- 
plied indefinitely in the public service? If 
he tre'ats his trust as plaything and perquisite, 
why may not every office-holder do the same ? 
If he disregards constitution und law in the 
pursuit of personal objects how can we expect 
a just subordination from others? If he sets 
up pretensions without number, repugnant to 
Republican institutions, must not tiie good 
cause sutFer? If he is stubborn, obstinate, and 
perverse are not slubbirnness, obstinacy and 
perversity commended for imitation ? If he 
insults and wrongs associates iu official trust, 
who is safe from the malignant influence hav- 
ing its propulsiou from the Executive Man- 



28 



sion ? If he fraternizes with jobbers and Hes- 
sians, where is the limit to the demoralization 
that must ensue ? Necessarily the public ser- 
vice takes its character from its elected chief 
and the whole country reflects the President. 
His example is a law. But a bad example 
must be corrected as a bad law. 

APPEAL TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 

To the Republican party, devoted to ideas 
and principles, I turn now with more than 
ordinary solicitude. Not willingly can I see it 
sacrificed. Not without earnest effort against 
the betrayal can I suffer its ideas and princi- 
ples to be lost in the personal pretensions of 
one man. Both the old parties are in a crisis, 
with this diS'erence between the two. The 
Democracy is dissolving; the Republican party 
is being absorbed. The Democracy is falling 
apart, thus visibly losing its vital unity ; the 
Republican party is submitting to a personal 
influence, thus visibly losing its vital charac- 
ter. The Democracy is ceasing to exist. The 
Republican party is losing its identify. Let 
the process be completed, and it, will be no 
longer that Republican party which I helped 
to found and have always served, but only a 
personal party, while instead of those ideas 
and principles which we have been so proud 
to uphold will be presidential pretensions, 
and instead of Republicanism there will be 
nothing but Grantism. 

Political parties are losing their sway. 
Higher than party are country and the duty to 
eave it from Cajsar. The caucus is at last un- 
derstood as a political engine, moved by wire- 
pullers, and it becomes more insupportable in 
proportion as directed to personal ends; nor is 
Its character changed when called a National 
Convention. Here too are wire-pullers, and 
■when the great Officeholder and the great 
Officeseeker are one and the same, it is easy to 
eee how naturally the engine responds to the 
central touch. A political convention is an 



agency and convenience, but never a law, least 
ot alia despotism ; and when it seeks to impose 
a candidate whose name is a synonym of pre- 
tensions unrepublican in character and hostile 
to good government, it will be for earnest 
Republicans to consider well how clearly party 
is subordinate to country. Such a nomination 
can have no just obligation. Therefore with 
unspeakable interest will the country watch 
the National Convention at Piiiladelpbia. It 
may be an assembly (and such is ray hope!) 
where ideas and principles are above all per- 
sonal pretensions, and the unity of the party 
is symbolized in the candidate or it may add 
another to presidental rings, being an expan- 
sion of the military ring at the Executive 
Mansion, the senatorial ring in this Chamber, 
and the political ring in the custom houses 
of New York and New Orleans. A National 
Convention which is a presidental ring cannot 
represent the Republican party. 

Much rather would 1 see the party ,_ to which 
I am dedicated, under the image of a life-boat 
not to be sunk by wind or wave. How often 
have I said this to cheer my comrades. I do 
not fear the Democratic party. Nothing from 
them can harm our life- boat. But I do fear a 
quarrelsome pilot, unused to the sea, but pre- 
tentious in Qommand, who occupies himself in 
loading aboard his own unserviceable relations 
and personal patrons while he drives away the 
experienced seamen who know the craft and 
her voyage. Here is a peril which no life-boat 
can stand. 

Meanwhile I wait the determination of the 
National Convention, where are delegates 
from my own much honored Commonwealth 
with whom I rejoice to act. Not without 
anxiety do I wait, but with the earnest hope 
that the Convention will bring the Republican 
party into ancient harmony, saving it espe- 
cially from the suicidal folly of an issue on the 
personal pretensions of one man. 



L 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 789 490 7 



;>l>,>,V;i,l('.'^-,< 



